A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

1. Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order by which the application of the petitioner for renewal of arms license was rejected, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has been holding an SPBL Gun on the strength of the license No. BL/646/TDA/ID for the SPBL Gun granted to him in the year 1970 and he has been renewing the license from time to time and it was in force till 31.12.2007. The petitioner made an application dated 3.1.2008 to the third respondent for renewal of his gun license. That authority kept the application pending for 25 months and ultimately rejected the same as per Ext.P1 order. The petitioner appealed against the said order before the 1st respondent and Ext.P3 order dated 6.6.2012 was passed remanding the matter for further consideration by the 2nd respondent on the basis of the observations and findings rendered by the appellate authority. As the 2nd respondent did not consider the application even after such specific directions issued by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 10533 of 2013 before this Court which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment dated 11.4.2013. The petitioner had produced copy of the judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for due consideration of the matter. However, ignoring the specific directions of this Court and that of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has now passed Ext.P5 order rejecting the application for renewal of license merely on the ground that he has received some adverse reports from the DFO, Nenmara. Hence, the writ petition.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it was contended that the Divisional Forest Officer, Nenmara has reported that the petitioner is an accused in O.R. No. 9 of 1999 reg1stered at Kollengode Range and also suspected in O.R. No. 14 of 2008 in connection with ganja cultivation in the above range. It was contended that the petitioner was heard on 31.7.2013 and considering the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nenmara, the first respondent has rejected the petition for reinstating the suspended license of the petitioner.

4. The third respondent, who has filed a separate counter affidavit, contended that O.R. No. 9 of 2009 was reg1stered against the petitioner alleging offences under section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act and the charge against him is that he had unlawfully entered in the land notified by the Government as paddy land and protected as reserve forest and has cleared the undergrowth and even constructed a solar fencing in the land reduced to his unlawful possession. It was further contended that the said respondent has every reason to believe that by allowing the petitioner to possess a gun, further offences affecting the mankind, the environment and the forest wealth are likely. The petitioner was involved in forest offence and is suspected in yet another case; it was contended.

5. Arguments have been heard.

6. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Chandran Nair vs. Additional District Magistrate, 2015 (1) KLT 41 has observed that a combined reading of Sections 14 and 15 of the Arms Act, 1959 would indicate that once a license is granted under the Act, the same shall be renewed from time to time unless there ex1sts a ground for refusal as enumerated under S.14 of the Act. It was further observed that the protection to life and property of a citizen is the responsibility of the State and it is only when a person apprehends that the machinery of the State may not come to his aid to protect his life and property, he/she applies for a license under the Act. It was further observed that the subjective satisfaction of the authorities under the Act that there is no threat to the life and property of the applicant may or may not be correct and when the applicant feels that there is threat to his life and property, there is no reason for the State to risk his life and property.

7. The learned cou