Tarkeshwar Mall vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4223

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 235 of 2025

Petitioner :- Tarkeshwar Mall Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Ranjan Srivastava 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 directing the respondents to pass renewal of license of Arms license No. 3650/II Revolver No. B-69424-32.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide claim of the petitioner and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure No. 5) to writ petition."

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has applied for renewal of arms licence before the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, District Deoria on 04.12.2024, 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 renewal 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 renewal 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 manner so that citizens do not face any difficulty on account of pendency of their applications.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that

¶14

application of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2, District Magistrate, District Deoria, it is hereby directed that application for renewal 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 renewal 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 :- 8.1.2025

¶17

K.K. Maurya

¶18

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

Tarkeshwar Mall v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarkeshwar Mall v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar vs State of Up and 4 Others

Brijendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Bhatt vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ahibaran Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Laksha Kshetra Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Varanasi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raghvendra Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others