Disposed

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2022WRIC/1007/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition by relying on a previous ruling, directing authorities not to compel the petitioner to deposit his firearm license unless an objective review by a competent authority determines an adverse finding.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed that the petitioner not be compelled to deposit his firearm license unless an adverse finding is recorded by a competent authority after an objective review.

Manish Kumar Singh Vs State of Up and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1007 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhat Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned standing counsel for State-respondents and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 through video conferencing.

¶6

Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or directing in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities not to compel the petitioner to surrender/deposit his fire arms before the concern police station without any proper order passed by the competent authority and not to harass the petitioner by the concerned police officer."

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of pronouncement of U.P. Assembly Election 2022, Police authorities are pressing the petitioner to deposit his arm license. It is next submitted that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014 (Harihar Singh & 6 others vs. State of U.P. & 2 others) alongwith connected writ petitions decided on 02.04.2014 and in the case of Uma Kant Yadav reported in 2007 (III) ADJ 434 . Those petitions were disposed of with direction to respondent-authorities not to compel the petitioner/arms licensees to deposit their fire-arm license, unless their cases have been objectively reviewed/examined by a competent authority in writing. Therefore, under such facts of the case, license of petitioner may not be deposited.

¶9

Learned standing counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, but could not dispute the legal pronouncements made by the Court.

¶10

I have considered rival submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.

¶11

Relevant paragraph No. 12(1) of the judgment passed in Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014 is being quoted below:-

¶12

"12.1. A mandamus is issued to the respondents not to compel the petitioners/arms licensees to deposit their fire-arms, unless their

¶13

case/cases has/have been objectively(emphasis is mine) reviewed/assessed by a competent authority in writing and after complying with the provisions of law."

¶14

Therefore, under such facts of the case, present petition is also disposed of in terms of order dated 02.04.2014 passed in WritC No. 17436 of 2014 .

¶15

Liberty is given to the respondent-authorities to examine the case of petitioner on individual basis by a competent authority strictly in accordance with law. If something is found adverse, petitioner shall be informed in writing about the same and further petitioner shall be directed to deposit the arm license.

¶16

Order Date :- 24.1.2022 Junaid

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 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

Urmila Devi Vs State of U P and 11 Others

Bhuteli and 2 Others Vs D.D.C. Kushinagar and 3 Others

Raju Alias Kamlesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Smt. Haleem Sadiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Satya Prakash Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and 16 Others