IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16331 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J.JOSE FERDINANT, KANNANKERIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI.P.O., AZHIKKAKAM, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.SAJI KURIACHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 030. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.16331/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3.3.11. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 7.4.10. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DT 10.1.11. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8.3.11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 16331 of 2011 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner was granted arms licence No.GL 1585/HOS, which was valid till 31.01.2009. As the period thereof was expired, he made application for its renewal. That was rejected by Ext.P2 order of the District Magistrate. An appeal was filed before the first respondent. That was also rejected by Ext.P3 order. It is falling in question these orders and seeking renewal of the licence, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Reading of Ext.P2 order of the District Magistrate shows that the only reason stated is that the Commissioner of Police, Kochi has not recommended the renewal of the arms licence since there was no threat to the life of the petitioner. Acting upon the said recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, the appeal was dismissed by W.P.(C) No.16331/2011 : 2 : Ext.P3. 3. Considering a similar order, in the judgment in Ganesh Prasad Vs. Board of Revenue (LR) [2005 (2) KLT 645], this Court has already held that even in spite of such recommendation, the licensing authority has to independently apply its mind to the application and take a decision in the matter. In other words, the licensing authority cannot be guided only by the recommendation of the police or the other agencies. In this case, evidently, Ext.P2 order shows that apart from referring to the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, the licensing authority has not applied its mind to the request of the petitioner. The appellate authority also has not independently considered the matter. 4. In that view, Exts.P2 and P3 are unsustainable. I quash the said orders and direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the second respondent will re-consider the application made by the petitioner and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within W.P.(C) No.16331/2011 : 3 : eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/29/08 The words and number “arms licence No.GL 1585/HOS” occurring in the first sentence of first paragraph of the judgment dated 29.08.2011 in W.P.(C) No.16331/2011 are deleted and substituted as “Arms licence No.928/CHN”, vide order dated 30.09.2011 in I.A.No.15199/2011 in W.P.(C) No.16331/2011. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial) // True Copy // P.A. To Judge