SHAJI SEBASTIAN v. JOSHI SEBASITAN,MANGALATHIL HOUSE

BY ADV. SMT.M.A.BINDU SRI.T.D.ROBIN SMT.M.A.BINDU RESPONDENTS:

JOSHI SEBASITAN,MANGALATHIL HOUSE, 31st MILE, MUNDAKKAYAM.

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM.

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KANJIRAPPALLY.

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKKAYAM. ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R2 TO R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12149 of 2009 Q -------------------------- JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus to the second respondent, Director General Prosecution, which evidently is a mistake for Director General of Police, to investigate FIR No.103/2009 of Mundakkayam Police Station expeditiously and also to direct the third respondent District Collector, Kottayam to take custody of licensed 12 Bore Single Barrel gun allotted to the first respondent, the elder brother of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that after investigation, a final report in Crime No.103/2009 of Mundakkayam Police Station has already been submitted before the court. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final report, the WPC 12149/09 2 remedy of the petitioner is to file a protest complaint before the Magistrate. Petitioner is not entitled to get a direction to investigate Crime No.103/2009 when, after investigation, a final report has already been submitted.

4. Prayer for taking custody of licensed 12 Bore Single Barrel gun allotted to the first respondent was sought on the ground that first respondent had undergone treatment for Mental Depression and Anxiety Disorder at Psychiatric Department of Kottayam Medical College and he is not a fit person to hold a dangerous sophisticated gun and therefore, the gun is to be taken custody by the District Collector.

5. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that Exhibit P3 complaint was filed before the third respondent District Collector inviting attention to the mental health condition of the first respondent and therefore, District Collector is bound to cancel WPC 12149/09 3 the licence and take custody of the gun.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that such a case is raised because of the property dispute and petitioner is not entitled to seek cancellation of the licence issued to the first respondent and if the case of the petitioner is that first respondent is suffering from mental illness and therefore, he is not capable of holding a licence under the Arms Act, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Court as provided under Section 50 of Mental Health Act and therefore, this petition is only to be dismissed.

Petitioner has not sought any direction to consider Exhibit P3 petition filed before the District Collector and therefore, that request need not be considered in this petition. District Collector is entitled to suspend or cancel the licence as provided under Section 17 of the Arms Act, if the District Collector gets any information WPC 12149/09 4 or report, based on which the licence is to be cancelled or suspended. The District Collector would definitely act in accordance with law. If the grievance of the petitioner is that first respondent is not entitled to hold a licence because of his mental health condition, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, remedy of the petitioner is to approach the District Court as provided under the Mental Health Act. Petition is dismissed. 6th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)