Allowed

Ram Dayal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2018WRIC/6266/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's firearm licence application due to lack of reasoning and prior illegality. While no fresh decision on the old application was served, the petitioner was directed to file a fresh application under the Arms Rules, 2016 within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; petitioner allowed to file fresh application under Arms Rules, 2016 within three weeks.

Ram Dayal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6266 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Dayal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the licensing authority by which, petitioner's application for grant of fire arm licence had been rejected. That order had been upheld in appeal by the Commissioner vide order dated 25.07.2015.

¶7

Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier similar rejection had been made in the case of the petitioner which matter reached this Court in Writ - C No.62938 of 2014. It was decided by order dated 24.11.2014. The operative part of that order reads as below:

¶8

"9. The order dated 27th March, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalaun and the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division Jhansi are, accordingly, set aside. The District Magistrate, Jalaun shall now examine the application filed by the petitioner for grant of firearm licence in accordance with the observations made by the Court in the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2012 passed in Writ Petition No.16565 of 2012 connected with Writ Petition No.15883 of 2012 and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate.

¶9

10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."

¶10

In the second round, the licensing authority has passed the impugned order again stating that no specific reason had been disclosed by the petitioner for grant of fire arm licence. Also, a vague reference has been made to the police report submitted to the licensing authority that grant of fire arm licence would be in the interest of public peace. However, no facts or circumstance or detail of the police report has been made in the impugned order. The order in appeal also similarly worded and structured.

¶11

In view of the fact that a similar order had earlier been set aside in the case of the petitioner vide judgment dated 24.11.2014 in Writ - C No. 62938 of 2014 and impugned order continues to suffer from some illegality, the same is hereby set aside for the reasons contained in the judgment dated

¶12

24.11.2014 passed in Writ - C No.62938 of 2014.

¶13

However, no useful purpose would be served in remanding the matter for decision afresh on the old application inasmuch as in the meanwhile, Arms Rules, 2016 have been enforced in the State which require an application to be made on a different proforma and there exist further requirements to disclose facts in accordance with those Rules.

¶14

Accordingly, it is left open to the petitioner to file a fresh application under the Arms Rules, 2016. If such application is filed by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from today, it is expected that the licensing authority shall pass a fresh reasoned order strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the timelines provided under the Arms Rules, 2016.

¶15

The present writ petition stands allowed .

¶16

Order Date :- 21.12.2018 Abhilash

Ram Dayal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dayal 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

S/S Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Mau and Another Vs Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and Another

Dhirendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Ram Sahai Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram Vs Debts Recovery Appellate and 3 Others