Disposed

Mudit Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2018WRIC/25730/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the petition regarding a firearms license claim. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh application under the Arms Rules, 2016, and instructed the licensing authority to decide it based on merits without reference to previous restrictive orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to move a fresh application for firearm license under Arms Rules, 2016 within three weeks; Licensing Authority to decide based on merits within three months.

Mudit Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25730 of 2018

¶4

Petitioner :- Mudit Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Mishra,Usha Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶6

The instructions supplied by learned Standing Counsel are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

In the instructions supplied today, the District Magistrate, Banda submits that the claim of the applicant for grant of fire-arm license is not maintainable in view of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.3268 M/B (Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.) dated 7.10.2013 as also the Government Order dated 14.3.2016 wherein general ban has been imposed by the State Government with the direction to consider the application only on three grounds:-

¶9

(1) the family heirloom policy;

¶10

(2) for victims of crime;

¶11

(3) only for sports person of national and international level who require fire-arm to participate in the Shooting competition.

¶12

The submission of learned Standing Counsel based on the judgment and order dated 7.10.2013 and the Government Order dated 14.3.2016 (issued pursuant thereto), is rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner with the assertion that the same cannot be sustained in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Misc. Bench No.828 of 2015 (M/S Agarwal Brothers Chowk Bazaar Thru. Proprietor & Anr.

¶13

v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home & 2 Ors.) . In the said bunch of writ petitions, direction has been issued to the concerned Authorities to consider all applications independently without being influenced by any observations made in the judgment and order dated 7.10.2013, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Rules, 2016. The relevant paragraph is quoted as under:-

¶14

“It is an admitted position that when the applications for licence were made by the

¶15

¶16

petitioners and when they were rejected, the Arms Rules, 2016 (for short 'Rules 2016') framed in exercise of the powers under Section 44 of the Arms Act were not in force. It further appears that this Court from time to time had issued directions/made observations in some petitions, including the order dated 7.10.2013 passed in Misc. Bench No. 3268 of 2012, and in pursuance thereof, the State Government had issued certain orders prescribing the guidelines for regulating the grant of licences. By order dated 7.10.2013, passed in Misc. Bench No. 3268 of 2012, a direction was issued not only to the State Government but also to the Central Government to come out with a plan to regulate grant of licence. In this backdrop, it is stated that the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 41 and in supersession of the Arms Rules, 1962, made the Rules, 2016 which came into force on 15.7.2016. In this view of the matter, counsel for the parties have agreed for the following order:

¶17

It is open to the petitioners to make fresh applications in the prescribed form under the Rules, 2016. The concerned authority shall deal with their applications, as and when made, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of the receipt of their applications, in accordance with the Rules, 2016. In view thereof, the orders, whereby the petitioners' applications came to be rejected, shall render ineffective and the concerned authority shall consider their fresh applications uninfluenced by those orders. If the State Government make any attempt to implement their orders issued from time to time, it is open to the aggrieved persons to take appropriate remedy against such action. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. “

¶18

It is noteworthy that while issuing the said directions, the Division Bench of this Court has noted that with the promulgation of the Arms Rules, 2016, the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 7.10.2013 have duly been complied with. The Licensing Authorities are, therefore, required to consider each application on merits, strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Arms Rules, 2016.

¶19

The said legal position is admitted to the learned Standing Counsel.

¶20

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the parties, the present petition is being disposed of with the directions as follows:-

¶21

(1) The petitioner shall move a fresh application seeking grant of firearm license in accordance with the Arms Rules, 2016 in the prescribed format prescribed therein, within a period of three weeks along with

¶22

¶23

certified copy of this order.

¶24

(2) In case such an application is moved, the Licensing Authority would be under obligation to consider the same and take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Rules, 2016, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the said application, after seeking requisite reports.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.8.2018 Jyotsana

Mudit Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mudit Agarwal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aslam Khan Vs State of U P and Another

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Ltd. Vs Controlling Authority, Under the Provisions of Payment of Gratuity ACT,1972 and 2 Others

Lakhan Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dharmendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Asif Khan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Ram Charan and Sons and 4 Others Vs Punjab National Bank and 3 Others