Disposed

Mohd. Umaid Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2018WRIC/13493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought expeditious consideration of an arms licence application to transfer a revolver to him from his aged father. Court allowed liberty to file a comprehensive application after completing statutory formalities under Rules and passed mandate. No opinion expressed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to petitioner to move comprehensive application before licensing authority after complying with Rules; authority shall consider it within two months.

Mohd. Umaid Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13493 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Umaid Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents; and perused the record.

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that his father Sri Anis Ahmad Ansari is holder of licence for N.P.B. revolver but, on account of his old age (75 years plus) and medical condition, he wishes to transfer the gun to the petitioner and, for the said purpose, an application has been moved by the petitioner for grant of arms licence. For expeditious consideration and decision on such application, this petition has been filed.

¶5

The learned Standing Counsel has invited attention of the Court to Rule 25 of the Arms Rules, 2016 which relates to grant of licences to legal heirs. It is provided therein that the licensing authority may grant licence after the death of the licencee to his legal heir or, on the licencee attaining the age of 70 years or on holding the firearm for 25 years, whichever is earlier, to any legal heir nominated by him.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel has accordingly submitted that the petitioner would have to complete the formalities as provided by the Rules so that an appropriate decision could be taken on the prayer of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the averments made in the writ petition do not disclose that any such nomination has been made in favour of the petitioner.

¶7

Be that as it may, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to move a comprehensive application before the licensing authority after completing all the requisite formalities as provided by the Rules and the Law applicable. If any such application is filed along with certified copy of this order, the licensing authority (second respondent) shall consider the application in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order thereon, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of filing of such application.

¶8

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶9

The petition stands disposed of .

¶10

Order Date :- 13.4.2018 AKShukla/-

Mohd. Umaid Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Umaid Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. E.C.F. Pariyojna, Ghaziabad Vs Late Krishna Pal SinghShishodia and other

Surendra Mishra and Another Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Usman Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anil Vs State of U.P.

F.C.I. Mazdoor Sangh and Others Vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Kartikeya Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another