Kerala High Court
Jomon George vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2025
1
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 20685 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
JOMON GEORGE, AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. GEORGE, EDATHUKAIKKAL HOUSE,
PULIKKAYAM, KODANCHERRY, NELLIPOYIL,
MEMUTTY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673580.
BY ADVS.
SAJI KURIACHAN
M.R.NANDAKUMAR(K/1657/1995)
JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN(K/197/2015)
ARJUN ANIL(K/000637/2021)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001.
4 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001.
2
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
5 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001 .
6 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THAMASSERY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673573.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.E.G.GORDEN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.03.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an agriculturist, submitted Ext.P1 application
for licence under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016.
Along with the application, the petitioner had also produced a
certificate of training as evidenced by Ext.P2. However, by
Ext.P3, the application stood rejected by the 4th respondent
herein, with reference to the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of
the Arms Act. Though an appeal was filed, the appeal was also
dismissed by the 2nd respondent herein as evidenced by Ext.P5.
2. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner filed the
captioned writ petition.
3. I have heard Sri.Saji Kuriakose, the learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
4. The sustainability or otherwise of the orders at Exts.P3
and P5 is the issue arising for consideration in this writ petition.
The petitioner’s application for a licence under the statute was
4
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
rejected, citing the provisions of Section 13(3)(b) of the Arms
Act. The respondents argue that the training certificate produced
cannot be accepted.
5. In this connection, I notice that a Division Bench of this
Court in Aboobaker V.T. and others v. Land Revenue
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [2022
(2) KHC 170] has considered the provisions of Section 13 of the
Arms Act, with reference to the issue of the licence under the
statute and found that if the application is one being made under
Section 13(3)(a), the embargo under Section 13(3)(b) cannot be
made applicable. Furthermore, I notice that with reference to
the acceptability of the training certificate, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has relied on the interim order issued by this
Court dated 21.12.2022 in W.P(C) No.19708 of 2022 to contend
that if the certificate in the nature of Ext.P2 is being relied on,
the same can be acted upon. However, I find that in Exts.P3 and
P5, the nature of the consideration made is not in tune with the
dictum laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above.
5
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
This Court also notices that the learned Single Judge of this Court
in W.P(C) No.9686 of 2024, as per judgment dated 14.08.2024,
has considered almost similar circumstances based on the
certificate of training produced by the applicant and has found as
under:
“10. The petitioner’s application for Arms Licence for Sports
purpose stands rejected on the ground that the certificate
produced by the petitioner is insufficient. In Ext.P14
judgment, it is noted that in the matter of Arms Licence, there
was an insistence that the training should be under the
guidance of the police authorities, which condition was taken
away by the Government itself as per letter dated 08.03.2023
and that the Government has taken a decision that Arms
Licence should be issued on the basis of a Training Certificate
issued by the accredited trainer/master accredited trainer.
11. Exts.P8, P9 and P10 are the certificates produced by the
petitioner in the matter of training. Ext.P8 has been issued by
a Weapon Trainer stating that the petitioner was imparted
reasonable working knowledge of important provisions of the
Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016, relevant to him and
made to understand responsibilities of the Arms, owner, or
user, particularly in relation to children. The Weapon Trainer
has certified that the petitioner has completed the training as
stipulated under Rule 10(1) of the Arms Rules, 2016. Ext.P8
6
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396issued by the Weapon Trainer also indicates that the
petitioner has attended weapon training, weapon handling,
weapon maintenance and weapon safekeeping and firing
technique. The trainer who has issued Ext.P8 certificate is for
empanelled shooter and national level shooter. The
qualification of the trainer is evident from Ext.P8. In the
circumstances, respondents 2 and 3 are not justified in
declining Arms Licence to the petitioner on the ground that
the Training Certificates produced by the petitioner are
insufficient.”
In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the matter
requires reconsideration, at the hands of the 4th respondent
herein. So as to facilitate the afore, Ext.P5 issued by the 2nd
respondent and Ext.P3 issued by the 4th respondent is set aside.
The 4th respondent is directed to consider Ext.P1 application filed
by the petitioner, with specific reference to the law laid down by
this Court in Aboobaker V. T. and others v. Land Revenue
Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and Others [2022
(2) KHC 170], as well as the judgment of this Court in W.P(C)
No.9686 of 2024 dated 14.08.2024 and the interim order dated
21.12.2022 in W.P(C) No.19708 of 2022, as expeditiously as
7
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from today,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the
matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
ln
8
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20685/2023
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL
THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRAINING CERTIFICATE
DATED 2/12/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. D3-
736/2022 DATED 26/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 5/1/2023
THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/4/2023
THUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED
4/12/2023 IN WPC 25530/2023 PASSED BY THIS
HON’BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
21/12/2022 IN WPC NO. 19708/2022.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F1/432/2022
DATED 24/12/2022 BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME (F)DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO F15/2023 DATED
29/05/2023 BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME (F) DEPARTMENT.
9
W.P(C) No.20685 of 2023 2025:KER:26396
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO-D2/6527/2022/DR
DATED 11-03-2022 OF THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF.
EXHIBIT R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.5246/2023 DATED 25/07/2023 ISSUED BY
THE SECRETARY KODENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
19/07/2023 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.
[ad_1]
Source link