Allowed

Kuldeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2019WRIC/44724/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed orders rejecting a petitioner's firearm license application as the rejection grounds fell outside Section 14 of the Arms Act. The petitioner was directed to apply afresh under the new Arms Rules, 2016.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned orders dated 14.8.2012 and 26.9.2013 quashed; petitioner directed to apply afresh under Arms Rules, 2016.

Kuldeep Srivastava Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44724 of 2015

¶3

Petitioner :- Kuldeep Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sharad Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Present petition has been filed assailing the order passed by licensing authority dated 14.8.2012 rejecting the application for grant of fire arm licence of the petitioner as well as the appellate order passed by respondent no.2 dated 26.9.2013 dismissing the appeal.

¶7

In nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that he applied for grant of licence of Revolver in the year 2011. Report was submitted by the Circle Officer and Superintendent of Police in the year, 2011. After police verification, the application was pending, as such petitioner filed a Writ C No.29034 of 2012 before this Court. This Court by order dated 1.6.2012 directed the competent authority to decide the application by speaking order within four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Thereafter, by order dated 14.8.2012, the licensing authority rejected the application for grant of fire arm licence of the petitioner on the ground that in Column '6' of the application, he has not stated that for what business, he has applied for the fire arm licence. It was further stated that he has not averred whether there was any threat or danger to his life. On the basis of the aforesaid, his application was rejected.

¶8

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 18, the said appeal was also rejected by order dated 26.9.2013.

¶9

Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that neither there is any criminal history nor the petitioner is involved in any case and merely that the petitioner has not stated that there is any threat to his life, the application for grant of fire arm licence was rejected. He further submitted that the grounds for refusal of licence

¶10

has been enumerated in Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 and the grounds of rejection does not fall under the conditions as given in Section 14.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel has reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner had not filled up his licence form properly, as such the licence could not be granted.

¶12

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders passed by the authorities concerned, I find that there existed no ground for refusal of grant of fire arm licence and the licensing authority has wrongly rejected the application for grant of fire arm licence to the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the above, order dated 14.8.2012 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 26.9.2013 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed, writ petition stands allowed . However, if the petitioner applies afresh, in view of new Arms Rules, 2016, the licencing authority shall consider and decide the said application in accordance with law, expeditiously within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.4.2019 S. Singh

Kuldeep Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Srivastava 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhudev Trivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Tariq Vs the Managing Director and 2 Others

Bulahi Ansari Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Neetu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vindesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others