LIJO T J Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER made Ext.P4 application to the third respondent for an Arms licence, under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder. The need of licence indicated in Ext.P4 application was sports purposes and self protection. He has also stated that he is a member of the Ernakulam District Rifle Association and is also participating in rifle competitions. According to the petitioner, certificates in support of the aforesaid claim were also produced along with the application.

(2.) THE District Collector obtained reports from the Commissioner of Police and the DFO. THEreafter, Ext.P11 order was passed by the District Collector, stating that the DFO conveyed his no objection and that Commissioner of Police reported that there is absolutely no threat to the life of the petitioner and that as per the Arms Rules, 1962, licence for sports purpose can be issued only to licenced Sports Club or Associations. Accepting the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, licence was rejected to the petitioner.

(3.) A reading of Ext.P11 order passed by the third respondent shows that without any independent application of mind, the third respondent has merely gone by the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Police and rejected the application. This itself will vitiate the order, in view of the principles laid down in the judgment in Ganesh Prasad's case(Supra).