Disposed

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022WRIC/26427/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the District Magistrate/Arm Licensing Authority to decide his application for a firearm license expeditiously. The Court disposed of the petition by directing the license authority to consider and decide the application within two months without unnecessary adjournments, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Magistrate/Arm Licensing Authority to decide the firearm license application within two months expeditiously.

Jay Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26427 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Jay Prakash Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandrika Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

The petitioner has preferred the present petition inter-alia with the following prayer:-

¶6

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents No. 2 to decide the application No. 504 dated 22.11.2018 for grant of the fire arm license {Rivalver/ Pistal NPB] to the petitioner as early possible within a stipulated time, during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court."

¶7

It is argued that for the grant of fire arm license an application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 namely District Magistrate/ Arm Licensing Authority District, Bulandshahar on 22.11.2018, copy of which is appended at page- 17 to 19 of the paper book.

¶8

It is argued that time limit for the grant of license is prescribed under Rule 13 of the Arms Rule, 2016, which reads as follows:-

¶9

" 13. Time limit for grant of licence.─ The licensing authority, after considering the application and on being satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled the eligibility conditions, shall grant or refuse to grant a licence for permissible category of arms or ammunition specified in category III of Schedule I, to any person by recording in writing the reasons for such grant or refusal, by passing a speaking order, within a period of sixty days of the receipt of the police report:

¶10

Provided that the licensing authority shall specify, the type of arms and ammunition to be procured by the applicant after assessing the reason and the need for possession of the type of arms and ammunition applied

¶11

for by the applicant, considering its lethality or fire-power."

¶12

In view of the aforesaid, it is argued that the respondent no.2 was duty bound to pass appropriate order as per provision contained under Rule 13 of the Arms Rule, 2016.

¶13

In response to the aforesaid it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents that respondent no.2 will take a decision in the matter, expeditiously.

¶14

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no. 2 namely District Magistrate/ Arm Licensing Authority, District-Bulandshahar to consider and decide the aforesaid application in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Swati

¶17

Digitally signed by SWATI PATHAK Date: 2022.09.08 17:11:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shambhu Nishad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Shana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Jyoti Singh Vs Harihar Prasad Bhatt Principal D.I.E.T. Bahraich

Dr. Baleshwar Prasad Mishra Vs Mr. Raj Pratap Singh Prin. Sec. Medical Education Lko.

Tuheeram Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others