Partly allowed

Mahkar Singh Mavi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2018WRIC/38086/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A High Court Writ Petition challenging a non-speaking order rejecting a firearm licence application. The Court held that the order ignored the applicable Arms Rules, 2016 and relied on a superseded Government Order. The order was set aside and the matter remitted to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 2.8.2018 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate for a fresh decision in accordance with the Arms Rules, 2016.

Mahkar Singh Mavi Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38086 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mahkar Singh Mavi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The order impugned in the present petition is the order passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut dated 2.8.2018, a perusal of which reflects that the same is totally a non-speaking order. The application seeking grant of fire-arm licence moved by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall in any of the category as is laid down vide Government Order dated 14.3.2016 which had been issued pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.3268 M/B/12 (Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.).

¶6

The fact that the Arms Rules, 2016 had been promulgated after the aforesaid Government Order, has been totally ignored and it has been informed by the learned Standing Counsel that a fresh Government Order dated 8.10.2018 has been issued by the State Government clearly narrating therein that all the pending applications as on the date of the promulgation of Arms Rules, 2016 i.e. 15.7.2016 shall be decided strictly complying with the requirments of Arms Rules, 2016.

¶7

Even otherwise, with the promulgation of the Arms Rules, 2016 w.e.f. 15.7.2016, it was incumbent upon the District Magistrate to consider all the application in accordance with the requirements thereof.

¶8

No consideration could have been made to the requirement of the Government Order dated 14.3.2016 which had lost its efficacy with the promulgation of the Arms Rules, 2016.

¶9

For the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 2.8.2018 cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Meerut for fresh decision considering the requirements of the Arms Rules, 2016 after seeking fresh reports. An endeavour shall be made to decide the matter preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.

¶10

The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.11.2018 Jyotsana

Mahkar Singh Mavi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahkar Singh Mavi 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 Flexi Pack Polyfilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Secretary and 2 Others

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of U P and 03 Others

Laldev Yadav Vs State of U P and 03 Others

Navin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushlendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

M/S War Hero Oil Company Vs Union of U.P. and 2 Others