JUDGMENT

The petitioner was having an arms licence which enabled him to possess three weapons. The licence was valid up to 31.12.2021. The petitioner surrendered the guns before expiry of the licence and preferred an application for renewal of licence of two fire arms. On receipt of the renewal application, the first respondent issued Exhibit P2 letter to the second and fourth respondents requiring those authorities to conduct an enquiry and submit report in the prescribed format within 30 days. As there was inordinate delay in taking decision on his application, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 before the first respondent, requesting to prompt the second respondent to submit the report at the earliest. As the representation failed to evoke any positive response, details regarding the status of enquiry was obtained under the Right to Information Act. The information revealed that the second respondent had informed the first respondent the reason for delay was the petitioner's failure to respond to answer the query as to the reason for seeking arms licence.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, unlike an application for fresh licence under Section 14 of the Arms Act, an application for renewal of licence under Section 15 does not contain any specific ground for refusal. In support of this proposition, reliance is placed on the decisions in Chandran Nair C v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and Others [2015 (1) KLT 41] and Jose Kuttiyany v. Land Revenue Commission [2015 (3) KLT 780]. It is contended that the third respondent cannot require the petitioner to provide reply to queries that have nothing to do with the limited enquiry to be conducted by the said authority. As such, the first respondent is bound to consider the application for renewal after obtaining report from the second respondent.

3. Learned Government Pleader contended that the considerations to be effected while granting a new licence and renewing an existing licence are almost the same. Attention is drawn to Section 15(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 which stipulates that the provisions of Sections 13 and 14 shall apply to the renewal of a licence in the same manner they would apply to grant of licence. Reference is also made to Rule 24 of the Arms Rules, 2016 as per which, every licence may be renewed within 30 days of receipt of Police report, subject to the same conditions (if any) as to the grant thereof. It is submitted that these requirements are not addressed in the decisions relied on the petitioner.

4. I am unable to accept the contention that, unlike grant of a fresh licence, the procedure for renewal of licence is just a formality. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Section 15(3) and Rule 22(1) indicate otherwise. This position is considered and answered by the Division Bench in Abookaker V.T and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Tvm and Others [2022(2) KHC 170], the relevant portion of which reads as under;

“21. On a conjoint reading of S.13. S.14 and S.15, it is clear that apart from the conditions contained under S.14 and S. 15, the licensing authority is vested with powers to consider applications for grant of licence or renewal of licence taking into account the reasons enumerated in S. 13(3)(b), except the ones specified in S.13(3)(a)(i) and (i). Thus, on an analysis of the reference in the above manner, we come to the following conclusions:

For the consideration of applications for licences under S.14 and S.15 of Act 1959, the provisions of S.13(3)(b) can be relied upon for assimilating any "good reason" in order to grant, renew or refuse the licences, however, except under the circumstances mentioned under S.13(3) (a)(i) and (ii) of Act, 1959 Thus to say, the licenses dealt with under S 13(3)(a) (i) and (i) are classified as a distinct one so as not to attract the requirement of 'good reason' envisaged in S.13(3)(b) Which thus also means, other than the specific circumstances made under S.13(3)(a)(i)