Dismissed

Dhananjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2020WRIC/42541/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by Gram Pradhan seeking a certiorari to quash rejection of his arms licence application. Court held that petitioner failed to show existence of factors required for licence grant, presented no documentary evidence of threat to life, and obtaining a licence is not a fundamental right.

What did the court decide?

Petition for issuance of writ or direction for grant of arms licence dismissed.

Dhananjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42541 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dhananjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Arvind Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Petitioner has filed this petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.10.2018 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by respondent no.3, whereby request of the petitioner to grant arms license has been rejected.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Gram Pradhan and as such he is entitled to issuance of an arms license. He places reliance on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench dated 27.7.2016 passed in Writ-C No.3686 of 2016 wherein the co-ordinate Bench had directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the observations made in the order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is grave danger to his life and therefore, he is entitled to issuance of a writ for grant of arms license.

¶9

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, submits that the impugned orders are speaking orders. They categorically make out a case as to why the petitioner has not been extended facility of an arms license.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that the order on which petitioner is placing reliance i.e. order passed in Writ-C No.3686 of 2016 is based on earlier order of this High Court in case of Sanjay Maurya vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.56706 of 2012, wherein the ratio of the judgement is that if an applicant is able to show the existence of the factors enumerated in the order, then the arms license should not be denied unless there are other relevant factors regarding his conduct etc.

¶11

In the present case, it is apparent that petitioner has failed to make out a case to show that any of the factors as have been considered and mentioned in the case of Sanjay Maurya (supra) existed so to enable him to obtain arms license.

¶12

Petitioner submits that in paragraph 15 of the writ petition, he has mentioned that there is threat to his life but the fact of the matter is that there is no documentary evidence to support the pleadings in paragraph 15.

¶13

In any case, obtaining of arms license is not a fundamental right and it is to be carried out and covered by the State policy. Petitioner having failed to point out any illegality or arbitrariness in the State policy, as also since not challenged the State policy, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for interference in the impugned orders.

¶14

Petition fails and is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Shalini

Dhananjay Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Kumar 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mulaum Kumar Kaushal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Jagdish Vs Mohd. Sayeed

Rajwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dinesh Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jesus Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Ambedkar Primary School and Another Vs Suresh Kumar Sharma and Others