IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 22ND BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 20748 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M.K. KURIAN, KUNNIRICKALMANAKKAL HOUSE, PANANGAD, VALAKKODE VILLAGE, PUNALOOR,PATHANAPURAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT MANAKKAL HOUSE, THOTTABHAGOM P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 20748/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JOURNEY PERMIT DATED 4TH JULY 2005 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.8.05 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.9.05 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE OCPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 3.10.2005 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE OCPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.10.2005 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE OCPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.10.2005 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.10.2005 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 5.7.2006 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 8.11.2006 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.11.2006 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 20748 OF 2007 ==================== Dated this the 13th day of September, 2007 J U D G M E N T The application made by the petitioner for transfer of his gun licence was declined to be considered by Ext.P7 order as according to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had not applied for re-registration of the licence. Since the licence was issued in Arunachal Pradesh, re-registration in Kerala was necessary for considering the request for transfer. It is submitted that pursuant to Ext.P7, petitioner made an application for re-registration as per Ext.P8 and finally in Ext.P10, issued in response to Ext.P9 notice issued on his behalf, his counsel was informed that the petitioner had requested the 2nd respondent to stop re-registration process for the reason that he had sold the weapon to an Arms dealer at Punalur. It is stated that in view of the request so made by the petitioner, re-registration process WPC 20748/07 : 2 : was stopped and that the same was informed to the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the writ petitioner contends that it is a factually incorrect statement in Ext.P10 that the petitioner wanted to stop the re-registration process. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to appraise the 2nd respondent and request him to proceed with the application that he had made for transfer and re-registration. 3. In view of the assertion of the petitioner that he had not made any such representation as mentioned in Ext.P10, it will be open to the petitioner to make appropriate applications before the 2nd respondent for re- registration and transfer of the licence. If such applications are filed, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp