The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensing authority must consider each application for a Gun licence on its individual merits, apply its mind to the facts presented by the applicant, and not be guided by irrelevant facts. The authority should also properly consider relevant factors and not rely on irrelevant considerations in decision-making.

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. Appeal filed against Ext.P1 was rejected by the 1st respondent through Ext.P3 order. During personal hearing before the appellate authority the petitioner submitted that there is menace of wild boars and wild monkeys in the agricultural land and the Gun is required to scare away them. It was pointed out that the petitioner's father as well as his grandfather was holding Gun licences and that there was no criminal case charged against the petitioner at any point of time. But the 1st respondent-appellate authority had deviated totally from the contentions as well as the materials based on which the 2nd respondent had rejected the application and observed as follows;

"The appellant has failed to prove that he is at personal danger from wild animals in the reserve forest nearby. The Superintendent of Police has not mentioned of any threat the applicant faces in this regard. Even the Tahsildar who has recommended grant of licence has not indicated that the appellant faces any threat to his life. The District Collector is right in relying upon the guidelines from the MHA that licence should be given only to those applicants who face a grave and imminent threat to their lives."

4. 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 o