Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13861

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
RAJEEV K.S. – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7540 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SAJI KURIACHAN, SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR
For the Respondents: SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GP.

Petitioner may appeal against Arms Act order as statutory remedy exists.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate under the Arms Act, noting the existence of statutory remedies under Section 18 of the Act. The court declined to entertain the writ petition, referring to precedents and allowing the petitioner to appeal against the order. The petition was disposed without prejudice to the statutory right of appeal.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Kottayam, under the provisions of the Arms Act s and Rules. Against the said rejection, the petitioner has an adequate and effective statutory remedy under Section 18 of the before the Land Revenue Commissioner.

In view of the principles laid down by this Court in Bus Operators Organisation v. Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad [2026 KHC Online 117], I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P3 in appeal on all available grounds.

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document