IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28180 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOHN JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY OUSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, KADAVOOR P.O., POTHANIKADU, ERNAKULAM-686 671. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SMT.K.S.SUMITHA SMT.LIJITTA G.MATHEW SMT.S.K.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 025. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28180/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY IST RESPONDEN DATED 26.9.2011. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE UNDER ARMS ACT DATED 30.11.2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY POLICE DEPARTMENT DATED 26.2.2010. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE RANGE OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT DATED 25.6.2010. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF DFO, KOTHAMANGALAM DATED 19.6.2010. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 31.7.2010. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH ATTENDANT DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 29.1.2011 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF REPORT FILED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA DATED 19/7/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28180 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner made Ext.P2 application for addition of a new weapon to the existing licence. That was rejected by the District Collector as per Ext.P6 order. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner heard the parties and passed Ext.P1 order remitting the matter to the District Collector. It is this order, which is under challenge. 2. Petitioner says that reasons which weighted with the Land Revenue Commissioner are incorrect and therefore the order is erroneous. In support, counsel makes reference to Ext.P9 of the Superintendent of Police. 3. The operative portion of Ext.P1 order reads thus: “Verified the records and heard the party. In this case the appellant has said that he requires an additional weapon since he follows a risky profession of a Forest Guard. He states that Forest Guard have been killed in the past. He states that his case for an additional gun had been supported by the DFO and the Superintendent of Police, but the District Magistrate had turned down the request. On perusal of the District Magistrate, records it is seen that licence was refused since the Superintendent of Police had not specifically reported the need for an additional gun. WPC No. 28180/11 :2 : In this case, it is clear that the appellants life is under some form of threat due to he nature of his profession. It is up to the District Magistrate to properly assess the gravity of the threat and to allow or disallow the request. For this he must get a clear report from the Superintendent of Police and Divisional Forest Officer to see whether the second weapon applied for is necessary. In the circumstances, the case is therefore remanded back to the District Magistrate, Ernakulam for fresh consideration. The appeal is disposed accordingly.” 4. A reading of this order shows that the Land Revenue Commissioner accepted that there is some form of threat to the life of the petitioner. On such conclusion, the Land Revenue Commissioner has directed that the District Magistrate will assess the gravity of the threat and on that basis, pass fresh orders in the matter. In my view, this reasoning of the Land Revenue Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous or contradictory to the views taken by the Police Chief in Ext.P9. In that view, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate to pass orders in the matter as directed in Ext.P1. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp