RANJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P39 and P40 proceedings of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner has also sought for other consequential reliefs.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is a person who is very much interested in participating in target practice, by using revolver and rifle and also a member of the Rifle Club Association. Petitioner is issued with Ext.P7 licence for the possession of a firearm with weapon specification as .022 Bore SBBL rifle. Later petitioner added additional firearms to his parent licence and all such licences are renewed from time to time. It is contended that the petitioner is in possession of three weapons, i.e., .032 Bore revolver, .12 bore DBBL gun and .22 Bore SPBL rifle as evident from Ext.P8 renewed arms licence. Petitioner during Covid-19 pandemic returned back to his native place from his employment in UAE and thereafter he participated in several activities connected with rifle club and shooting target practice. Based on the Government Orders issued for controlling problematic wild boars which destroy agricultural crops and also cause threat to human life, the Divisional Forest Officer constituted an experienced team of experts in using firearms for controlling the problematic wild boars and the petitioner was also selected as one among to such team of professional hunters to shoot the problematic wild boars. The Forest Department has also issued Ext.P20 identity card treating the petitioner as a professional hunter. As per Exts.P21 and P22, petitioner was included as one of the members of the hunting team of wild boars. Likewise, petitioner was issued with Ext.P23 life membership by the Kottayam Rifle Association and Ext P24 membership by the National Rifle Association. Petitioner with an intention to start an armoury shop rented out a building in Pala. While the petitioner's dealership licence application was under active consideration, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P34 notice directing the petitioner to surrender the third firearm possessed by the petitioner under the parent licence No.R 594/KTM before the nearby SHO of the Police Station in view of the amendment to Sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Arms Act, 1959 which came into force in 2019. On receipt of Ext.P34 notice, petitioner decided to surrender and deposit one of his firearm, i.e., NPB.32 Bore Revolver weapon. Accordingly, he approached the Cochin Armoury, a licensed dealer and deposited the said revolver and as evident from Ext.P36 dtd. 26/9/2022 the said revolver is seen deposited with the said armoury. Ext.P37, the relevant pages of the register maintained by the Cochin Armoury, also revealed that on 26/9/2022 the third firearm was surrendered. Thereupon, the petitioner sent a copy of Ext.P37 deposit receipt with Ext P38 covering letter to the 3rd respondent. A copy of the same was submitted to the Pala Police Station also. While so, to the utter shock of the petitioner, he has been issued with Ext.P39 order intimating that the parent arms licence of the petitioner bearing No.R 594/KTM stands cancelled for the reason that the petitioner has not surrendered the third firearm as directed in Ext P34 notice. Consequent to Ext.P39, Ext.P40 letter was issued to the petitioner cancelling the licence. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Petitioner would submit that before issuing Exts.P39 and P40, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is also contended that since he has complied with the direction in Ext.P34 by depositing one firearm before the Cochin Armoury, the 3rd respondent ought not to have cancelled the licence of the petitioner as per Exts.P39 and P40. Petitioner submits that going by the relevant provision of the Arms Act, the petitioner is entitled to surrender the same before an armoury shop and that it is not mandatory that the weapons should be surrendered before the police authorities.