IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 2061 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23030/2010 Dated 06/09/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- SANTHOSH THOMAS, MATTAKKATTU HOUSE, AYTHALA.P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695039. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689506. 3. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695041. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No. 2061 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 6th September, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.23030 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the present writ appeal. 2. The appellant was a licensee under the relevant provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 to possess a 12 Bore SBBL gun which was valid till 7.12.2010. The appellant also possessed a 12 Bore SBBL gun. However, it appears that on the night of 25.5.2008 there was a theft in the house of the appellant and the above mentioned gun along with certain other valuables were reportedly stolen. The appellant, therefore, made an application seeking permission to possess another SBBL gun in view of the missing of the weapon. By order dated 2.12.2009 the licensing authority not only rejected the above mentioned application of the appellant, but also cancelled the licence issued to the appellant earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority (Land Revenue Commissioner) unsuccessfully. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated 12.7.2010. Therefore, the appellant approached this W.A.No.2061 of 2010 - 2 - Court by way of the above mentioned writ petition with the prayers as follows: “(i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibits P5 and P6 orders as illegal and arbitrary. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Exhibits P3 and P4 applications and permit him to purchase another gun on the basis of Licence No.3/2003/III/RNI already issued to him and which is valid till 07.12.2010. (iii) to issue such other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 3. By the judgment under appeal, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. The learned Judge opined that the licensing authority is competent under Section 17(3)(a) of the Arms Act to cancel the licence issued if the licensing authority comes to the conclusion that the licensee is unfit to hold such a licence and as a matter of fact, in the instant case, the licensing authority did record such a finding which was also affirmed by the appellate authority. The learned Judge recorded a finding that the reasons assigned by the licensing authority are squarely within the scope of the jurisdiction conferred under Section 17(3)(a) of the Arms Act and therefore there is no reason to interfere with the said conclusion. W.A.No.2061 of 2010 - 3 - 4. Sri.Alan Papali, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the licensing authority in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is unfit to hold the licence, resorted to a conjecture as to how the appellant lost possession of the licensed gun and therefore the conclusion based on such a conjecture is not legally tenable. The relevant portion of Ext.P5 by which the licensing authority declined permission to the appellant reads as follows: “The licensee has failed to protect the gun or valuables in his house, though the licence was to protect himself and his valuables. It is not prudent to permit him to purchase another gun as it is not certain whether he has transferred the gun to somebody surreptitiously or whether it has fallen into some undesirable hands.” 5. It can be seen from the above that the licensing authority recorded two reasons for the conclusion not to permit the appellant to possess another weapon. The first reason is that in the facts and circumstances recorded it is not prudent to permit the appellant to possess another gun . The second reason recorded by the licensing authority of course is based on a conjecture as to the manner in which the appellant lost possession of his weapon. Assuming that the second reason given by the licensing authority is not a legally tenable reason, the first reason given by the licensing authority that in the facts W.A.No.2061 of 2010 - 4 - and circumstances of the case it is not prudent to permit the appellant to have possession of another weapon, in our view, cannot either be said to be beyond the jurisdiction or arbitrary for any reason. In the circumstances, we do not see any merit in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge vns