V.P.Yohannan v. District Collector & District Magistrate, Ernakulam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/17TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 3805 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- V.P.YOHANNAN AGED 72 YEARS VAYALLIL PARAMBIL NADAMEL HOUSE, KRARIYELI KOMBANAD P.O., PIN 683 555 BY ADVS.SRI.S.VINOD BHAT SRI.LEGITH T. KOTTAKKAL RESPONDENT(S):

--------------------------

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM- 682 030.

2. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ALUVA - 683 101.

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-022015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 3805 of 2015 (A) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT. P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO KDIS/76892/2010 M3 DATED 13-03-2012 OF 1ST RESPONDENT EXT. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30-12-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXT. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M3/D.DIS/309/2014 DATED 14-01-2015 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P. A. TO JUDGE STK

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

----------------------------------- W.P(C). No. 3805 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Rejection of the application for renewal of the Arms licence as per Ext.P3 order passed by the 1st respondent, made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the writ petition. 2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, there is no proper application of mind while passing Ext.P3 and the same is liable to be intercepted. Learned counsel further submits that, threat perception of the petitioner cannot be appreciated in the manner as done by the 1st respondent vide Ext.P3.

3.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4.

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the petitioner is having an effective remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. This Court also finds that, how the application for renewal has to be considered has already been made clear by this Court as per the decision reported in Chandran Nair V. Additional District Magistrate (2015 (1) KLT 41).

W.P(C). No. 3805 of 2015 5.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to move the appellate authority. Without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner in this regard, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is granted 'two weeks' time to file the appeal as aforesaid.

Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE Pn