Petitioner sought release of a deposited firearm. The court dismissed the writ as misconceived due to incorrect facts, incomplete petitions, and lacunae in the supplementary affidavit, directing the party to approach the competent authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22985 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sukhvir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The prayer made in the present petition is to issue direction to the respondent no. 2 to release Rifle No. AB-06-00670 in favour of the petitioner within stipulated period.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a valid licence holder of fire arm namely Rifle No.AB-06-00670, which was renewed upto 31.12.2020. The submission is that the petitioner has deposited his fire arm with the Arms Dealer Raj Kumar, Gun House Bisalpur, District Pilibhit on 13.12.2006 due to on going elections.
In the meantime, the licence of the petitioner was suspended by the order passed by the licensing authority in the year 2007 which was resumed on 20.5.2015 after the suspension order was revoked.
It is further contended that after revocation of the fire arm licence, the petitioner moved an application on 16.5.2016 before the Station Incharge Bisalpur District Pilibhit for release of his fire arm, as in the meantime, Arm Dealer namely Raj Kumar, Gun House Bisalpur, District Pilibhit was suspended and the fire arms deposited in the Gun house were confiscated by the licensing authority at Bisalpur, District Pilibhit.
The crux of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the fire arm deposited by him in the year 2006 with the Arms Dealer namely Raj Kumar, Gun House Bisalpur, District Pilibhit had remained deposited with the Arms Dealer till his licence was revoked and the fire arms of his shop were confiscated by the licensing authority in the year 2016. The period of ten years, which has lapsed in the aforesaid proceedings, has not been explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner.The suspension order and the revocation order passed by the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority are not on the record.
It is not understandable as to how the fire arm deposited by the petitioner in the year 2006 remained with Raj Kumar Gun House till 2016.
Apart from the above, despite sufficient time granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to fill in the gaps/lacuna in the present writ petition, the supplementary affidavit filed today does not provide sufficient information.
In view of the fact that the writ petition has been filed with incorrect and incomplete facts, it is not possible for the Court to seek instructions from the respondents or to issue any direction. The writ petition is found misconceived and hence dismissed. However, it is always for the petitioner to approach the competent authority.
Order Date :- 23.7.2018 Pratima
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition can be maintained when the petitioner fails to explain gaps in the record and file insufficient affidavits.
Sukhvir Singh
State Of U.P.
3 Others
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
