The court reinforced the principle that alternate remedies must be exhausted prior to seeking writ relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner had filed an application for arms licence before the 2^nd respondent for self protection and the same was rejected by Ext.P9 order dated 13.03.2023. Against Ext.P9, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner/ 1^st respondent which was also rejected as per Ext.P10 order dated 13.11.2023. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.2598/2024 before this Court and this Court, by Ext.P1 judgment directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the application and pass appropriate orders in the light of Ext.P7 decision of this Court in Chandran Nair C. v. Additional District Magistrate, Kasaragod and Others [2015 (1) KHC

351].

2. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the District Magistrate/2^nd respondent passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has not given sufficient reason for allowing the application and there were no circumstances warranting the grant of licence under Section 13 (3)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, the 'Act'). It is further stated therein that the petitioner has not produced the Training Certificate issued by an approved trainer. Challenging Ext.P3, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. The petitioner submits that Ext.P3 order passed by the 2^nd respondent is contrary to the dictum laid down in Ext.P1 decision as well as the decision of the Division Bench in Ext.P8 [ Aboobaker V.T. and Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner , Thiruvananthapuram and Others [ 2022 (2) KHC 170 ]. The petitioner also submits that in view of G.O(RT)No.397/2026/Home dated 02.02.2026, the reason stated in paragraph No.3 of the impugned order regarding training certificate, cannot be sustained.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has got an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Act against Ext.P3 order. The learned Government Pleader also relied on the dictum laid down inSudha Sasikumar v.RTO [ 2025 KHC 797 ] to conduct that in view of the alternate remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

6. Ext.P3 order is appealable under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Revenue Commissioner. I do not find any exceptional circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: