K.O. Joseph vs The Commissioner of Land Revenue and The District Collector

Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioner had been holding arms licence for the last 24 years and was before this Court earlier against the rejection of renewal of the arms licence sought for by him, as per Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 order was challenged before the appellate authority and also before this Court. Exhibit P1 order merely stated that the Superintendent of Police has reported that "there is no need for weapon to the applicant"(sic) and hence the licence was not renewed. The appellant was before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the appellate authority under the Arms Act, 1959, wherein Exhibit P2 order has been passed. Going by Exhibit P2, the only reason for rejection of the renewal of the arms licence was that the appellant had in his possession only 90 cents of land in Muvattupuzha Taluk having a rubber nursery, pineapple cultivation etc. The finding of the appellate authority is that the extent of land is not large enough to warrant the need of a gun to protect the land against marauders or wild animals. We are not convinced that the extent of land can be the determinative factor, which can be considered in granting or refusing renewal of a gun licence.

The location of the land, being near a forest area, could be a reigning consideration in granting of arms licence for the purpose of protecting the land and the crops thereon against wild animals without looking at the extent. We are of the opinion, Exhibits P1 and P2 cannot be sustained for the reason of complete non application of mind. Therefore, Exhibits P1 and P2 are set aside and the second respondent District Collector is directed to consider the application of the appellant in accordance with law and after applying his mind to relevant factors. However, we make it clear that we have not said anything on the facts or merits of the matter and has merely postulated a tentative situation with respect to the location of the land.

The Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.