Kerala High Court Quashes Rejection Of Arms Licence Renewal Citing Lack Of Reasoned Order
The Kerala High Court has recently quashed orders refusing renewal of an arms licence, holding that the authorities failed to record valid reasons or consider settled legal principles governing such renewals.
Justice Mohammed Nias C P, allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner and set aside the orders of the District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, and the Land Revenue Commissioner, which had rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of his arms licence.
The licence renewal was denied on two grounds which included that there was no existing threat to the petitioner's life or property, and that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case.
The petitioner challenged the rejection contending that both grounds were legally unsustainable. He relied on Chandran Nair Cv Additional District Magistrate, Kasargode and Others [2015 (1) KHC 351], to contend that the absence of a present threat cannot, by itself, justify refusal of licence renewal. He further relied on Jose Kuttiyany v Land Revenue Commission, Trivandrum and Others [2015 (3) KHC 831] to submit that mere involvement in a criminal case, without more, is not a valid ground unless it affects public peace or safety.
The Respondents submitted that the licensing authority has discretion to refuse renewal in the interest of public peace and safety by invoking Sections 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The Court observed that neither the original order nor the appellate order contained any discussion or reasoning as required under the Arms Act or the Rules. It further noted that the authorities failed to consider or apply judgments which the petitioner has referred to.
“As there is no discussion or reason stated in Ext.P2 or Ext.P7 as required under the Act or Rules or a consideration of the principles laid down in the judgments referred above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.” the Court held
The Court quashed both orders and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner's renewal application afresh, strictly in accordance with the Arms Act, the relevant Rules, and the applicable judicial precedents. The petitioner is to be afforded an opportunity of hearing, and a fresh decision must be taken within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Case Title: Alexander Vadakkedom v Land Revenue Commissioner and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 18462/ 2023
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 853
Counsel for Petitioner: S Nikhil Sankar
Counsel for Respondents: Surya Binoy (Sr. GP)