Disposed

Laxmi Shanker Sahu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018WRIC/56596/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief against orders rejecting his firearm license application. Court noted the rejection was under old rules, while new Arms Rules, 2016 were in force. Petitioner is directed to file a fresh application under current rules, with earlier impugned orders set aside to ensure this is done without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 24.07.2014 and 12.11.2013 set aside; petitioner directed to file fresh application under Arms Rules, 2016.

Laxmi Shanker Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56596 of 2014

¶3

Petitioner :- Laxmi Shanker Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- K.K. Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of his arm license.

¶7

Admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected in the year 2013 and subsequent there to new Arms Rules, 2016 have been enforced requiring a different procedure for making of an application and enquiry before the fire-arm license may be granted.

¶8

The application filed by petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not have a genuine requirement for the same but that he had made the application only for the purpose of acquiring a status symbol in the society.

¶9

Assailing the aforesaid finding, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a commission agent at the wholesale food market, Kanpur and in view of the nature of the volume of trade, he has to necessarily carry large volumes of cash every day, from his place of business to his residence or bank on a day-to-day basis. In view of such transactions being performed by the petitioner, he feels threat to his life and property. Therefore, it has been submitted, the application filed by the petitioner was based on a genuine need felt by the petitioner that has been completely ignored and the petitioner's application has been rejected on conjectures and surmises.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent or history of the petitioner as may give rise to the disqualification for grant of the fire-arm license.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the

¶12

authorities have not erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as no real need has been established by him to possess a fire-arm and in any case, it has not been revealed by the petitioner that he had acquired requisite training in use of fire-arm as would be necessary, if such fire-arm were to be possessed by the petitioner for his personal safety and security without endangering safety of the public at large.

¶13

Perusal of the orders passed by the authorities do not indicate consideration of the need set up by the petitioner and at present, it is also not clear whether such need has been specifically set up by the petitioner as has been canvassed in the present proceedings.

¶14

Also keeping in mind that new Arms Rules 2016 have come into existence and any order for grant of a fire-arm license as prayed for by the petitioner would require consideration of his case under those Rules, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the licensing authority for reconsideration of the petitioner's case arising from the rejection of his application by the order dated 12.11.2013.

¶15

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner files a fresh application under the current rules, the same may be decided as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the timelines provided under the Arms Rules, 2016.

¶16

It is further made clear that the application to be filed by the petitioner may be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the fact that the earlier application filed by the petitioner under the old rules had been rejected. To that extent, the impugned orders dated 24.07.2014 and 12.11.2013 in the present petition may not stand in the way of the petitioner’s rights. Therefore, the same are set-aside.

¶17

In view of the fact that the petitioner has been claiming his right to possess a fire-arm for long period of more than 5 years, it is expected that the timelines provided under the Arms Rules, 2016 shall be strictly adhered to for the purpose of consideration of his fresh application.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.11.2018

¶19

Prakhar

Laxmi Shanker Sahu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Shanker Sahu v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Super Bhootpurv Sainik Suraksha Samit Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Guru Filling Station Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Samrendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kalyan Singh Vs State of U P and 03 Others

M/S Unicorn Technologies and 4 Others Vs the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and Another