JUDGMENT :

M/s. T. Jacob Armory is the writ petitioner. The petitioner is a Proprietary concern having licence for Arms and Ammunition dealer. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P14 and P15 and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to shift his Armory Shop from the present address to the new address as sought for, since the existing Armory Shop is not sufficient to keep the arms and ammunition.

2. The petitioner states that the Firm is a licensed dealer since 1957. The management of the Proprietary concern changed in the year 2019 and Shamon P.Y. became the Proprietor of the Firm. The Home Department gave new dealer licence to M/s. T. Jacob Armory, as per Ext.P1 order dated 01.01.2021. The District Collector also issued licence to the petitioner as authorised Arms and Ammunition Dealer for the period up to 22.01.2026, as per Ext.P2.

3. While so, the Additional District Magistrate issued Ext.P3 notice dated 29.01.2023 requiring the petitioner to rectify seven shortfalls noticed by him. Ext.P3 noted that the shop where arms and ammunitions are kept does not have the requisite space. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 16.02.2023 rectifying all other defects and informing the Additional District Magistrate that the petitioner is proposing to shift his business of Armory Shop to another convenient room bearing door No.35/58A6 on getting permission.

4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application dated 21.02.2023 to the District Collector seeking permission to shift the armory shop to the new building. The petitioner was required as per Ext.P6 to get a long term lease arrangement for the new building. The petitioner thereupon executed Ext.P7 lease deed where the tenure of the lease was fixed as five years. The District Collector forwarded all the documents to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (F) Department.

5. The Additional Chief Secretary called for a report from Police. The Inspector General, as per Ext.P11, informed that the proposed building is equipped with fire protection, emergency exist, strong room and recommended to give permission to shift the Shop. The District Collector also, as per Ext.P13, informed the Additional Chief Secretary that the building proposed for shifting the Armory Shop is safe and convenient.

6. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the Additional Chief Secretary, as per Ext.P14 letter dated 02.12.2023, rejected the request for shifting the Armory Shop. Ext.P14 was communicated to the petitioner as per Ext.P15 letter dated 20.01.2024 of the District Collector.

7. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P14 order is per se illegal. Rule 73 of the Arms Rules, 2016 referred to in Ext.P14 would not apply in the case of transfer of Armory Shop from one place to another. The petitioner wanted to shift the Armory Shop as the respondents have found the present building/shop is insufficient.

8. The petitioner pointed out that in other places in Kerala, change of business from one place to another was given by the licensing authority which is evident from Exts.P18 and P19. Respondents 2 and 3 are therefore compellable to allow the petitioner to shift their Armory Shop to the new location.

9. Government Pleader resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that variation, suspension and revocation of licences is governed by Section 17 of the Arms Act and the licensing authority may vary the conditions of licence. The Government Pleader further pointed out that the location of the place where the business is conducted is an integral part of the licence. When a licensee shifts place of business, it would require a new licence. Ext.P14 is therefore perfectly legal and justified, contended the Government Pleader.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

11. It is evident from the pleadings that the Armory Shop in question is being run in the current premises since the year 1957. The licence is