Allowed

Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024WRIC/40269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge directed District Magistrate to decide petitioner's pending arms license application within two months. Court imposed liability for daily compensation if delayed disposal occurs, invoking Article 226 jurisdiction to curb administrative delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to decide petitioner's arms license application within two months; granted Rs.100 per day compensation for any delay.

Vinod Kumar Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190411

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40269 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Singh,Shiv Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶8

"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi)/respondent no. 2, to decide expeditiously to the application of the Fire Arms License of (N.P. Bore Revolver/Pistol) of the petitioner which is pending since 26.07.2019 for granting of the Arms License for life security and business purpose as per the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016 within a stipulated time of two months which has been envisaged under section 13 of the Arms Rules, 2016 and the application is still pending before the respondent no. 2, since 26.07.2019.

¶9

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2, to take appropriate action of the arm license application of the petitioner after receipt of the police report dated i.e. 06.02.2023 submitted by Inspector In-Charge P.S. Suriyawan and the report dated 09.02.2023 submitted by Additional Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi) for taking necessary action which has not been decided yet and is still pending before the District Magistrate."

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has applied for grant of arms licence before the respondent no. 2 in the year 2019, however, till date the aforesaid application of the petitioner has not been decided by the concerned authority.

¶11

It is to be seen that before this Court large number of petitions are being filed for directing the licencing authorities to consider the application for grant of arms licence of the petitioners. The aforesaid large number of petitions are indicative of the fact that licencing authorities are not considering the applications for grant of arms licence in a time bound manner. The same may be indicative of red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices. The applications of the citizens are required to be considered by the authorities in a time bound

¶12

manner so that citizens do not face any difficulty on account of pendency of their applications.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel submits that application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence would be decided in a time bound manner.

¶14

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar/Bhadohi, it is hereby directed that application for grant of arms licence of the petitioner shall be decided by the licencing authority within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is hereby also provided that in the event the aforesaid application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence is not disposed of within the period herein above granted, the petitioner would be entitled to cost/compensation @ Rs.100/per day (for each day delay after two months) which is to be paid by the respondent no. 2 at the first instance and the same would be recoverable by the respondent no. 2 from the salary of the erring officials. This cost/compensation is in addition to the other legal remedies available to the petitioner including the enforcement of the present order, accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 K.K. Maurya

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Kumar Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitish Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S R.S. Paper vs Presiding Officer Noida and 3 Others

Smt Shubha Goel and 2 Others vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad and Another

Sanjib Shah vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Atul Prakash Dhar Dwivedi vs State of Up and 5 Others

Love Sharma vs State of Up and Another