Dismissed¶12

Nausima Alias Nausiya Bano v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025WRIC/27710/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ-C 27710 of 2025, Allahabad High Court, Prakash Padia J., 09.09.2025; succession-based fire-arm licence application, Prayagraj; District Magistrate personal affidavit on court's order dated 19.08.2025; 1359 pending succession-based fire-arm applications with respondent no.2; petitioner's claim rejected by order dated 02.09.2025; relief obtained; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no statutory provisions or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous, in view of the relief sought by the petitioner having been granted (her claim having been dealt with by respondent no.2 vide order dated 02.09.2025). ¶12

Nausima Alias Nausiya Bano Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 27710 of 2025

¶3

Versus Nausima Alias Nausiya Bano	.....Petitioner(s)
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : D.K.Ojha, Singh	Mudit Pratap
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No.- 33

¶4

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶5

Heard Sri D. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikey Saran, learned Additional Advocate General for State of U.P. along-with Sri Dharmendra Prasad Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondentState.

¶6

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 19.08.2025 personal affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj today in the Court, same is taken on record.

¶7

In paragraph-12 of the aforesaid instructions monthly disposal of succession based fire-arm license cases from April 2025 to July2025 is mentioned. It is further stated that as on date total number of pending succession based fire-arm applications are 1359 in the office of respondent no.2. In so far as case of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that vide order dated 02.09.2025 respondent no.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner.

¶8

After going through the same, it is argued by counsel for the petitioner that the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition has been granted hence present writ

¶9

WRIC No. 27710 of 2025

¶10

¶11

petition has become infructuous.

¶12