A. GIRISH Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is approaching this court aggrieved by the rejection of his application for granting a Gun licence, by the 2nd respondent, which is confirmed in appeal by the 1st respondent. Case of the petitioner is that he hails from family traditionally engaged in agriculture, having extensive areas of agricultural land in Belur Village in Hosdurg Taluk of Kasaragod District. It is stated that the petitioner is also managing extensive areas of agricultural land owned by his siblings, apart from the land in ownership in his own name. According to the petitioner, the locality is a remote village and is situated near the forest and there is constant threat from wild animals and birds to the agricultural crops. It is mentioned that the deceased father of the petitioner was holding a Gun licence, since the last 50 years, for the purpose of crop protection, with licence No:GLNo. 949/Hosdurg. It is after the death of petitioner's father on 26/04/2010, he had applied for the Gun licence.

(2.) IN Ext. P1 order of the 2nd respondent it is mentioned that the Tahsildar, Hosdurg Taluk had recommended for grant of the Gun licence stating that the agricultural crops are facing threat from wild animals such as monkeys, pigs etc. It was also reported by the Tahsildar that there is no reserve forest near to the property of the petitioner. It is evident from Ext. P1 order that, during the personal hearing conducted, the petitioner had produced various documents such as decision from the Board of Revenue and Rulings of this court. But the 2nd respondent observed that those are not having any application in the case, because the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India indicates that application for arms licence may be considered from persons facing grave and imminent threat to their lives and property. The 2nd respondent relied on a report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod District stating that at present there is no attack of wild animals to the agricultural crops of the applicant and also the report of the DFO, Kannur to the effect that grant of licence may affect wild life protection. Hence the application was rejected stating that threat of wild animals has been denied by the Superintendent of Police and the DFO.

(3.) BOTH the authorities have failed to consider the fact that the petitioner is owning and managing vast extent of agricultural land and that his father as well as grandfather were holding Gun licences. It is evident that the Tahsildar had recommended for grant of licence stating that the agricultural crops of the applicant is facing threat from wild animals such as monkeys, pigs etc. But the 2nd respondent had rejected the application observing that the Superintendent of Police had reported that there is no attack of wild animals towards agricultural crops at present. The 1st respondent appellate authority had not considered the appeal based on the relevant contentions and merits of the issue. He had pursued the matter on the premise that Gun licence is not required because there is no threat to the life of the petitioner. But it is evident that the licence was applied for the purpose of protection of the agricultural operations and the requirement for having the Gun was projected only to protect the agricultural crops from the attack of wild animals.