Disposed¶17

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2025WRIC/34061/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Firearm licence; arms licence delay; District Magistrate Azamgarh; time-bound disposal; Arms Act timelines; Government Order dated 10.3.2025; six weeks direction; mandamus for pendency; WRIT - C No. - 34061 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Prakash Padia, J.; Aneesh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another; application No. 647 of 2024 dated 28.01.2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the petitioner's firearm licence application (dated 28.01.2024, No. 647 of 2024) in the light of Government Order dated 10.03.2025, most expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from production of certified copy of the order, unless there is no legal impediment; any decision already taken to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith. ¶17

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Azamgarh can be directed to decide the petitioner's application dated 28.01.2024 (Application No. 647 of 2024) for grant of firearm licence, pending undecided despite lapse of considerable time.

¶9

Court's answer

Petition disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the licence application in the light of Government Order dated 10.03.2025 most expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order, unless there is no legal impediment.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

If the decision on the application has already been taken by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶18

Key takeaways

Observation that although the Arms Act and the Rules prescribe timelines for deciding firearm licence applications, these timelines are not honoured by District Magistrates, resulting in a flood of litigation before the Court; pursuant to the Court's orders the Government issued the Government Order dated 10.3.2025.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.) disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the petitioner's application dated 28.01.2024 (Application No. 647 of 2024) for grant of firearm licence, which had remained undecided despite considerable lapse of time. Observing that timelines prescribed under the Arms Act and the Rules are routinely not honoured by District Magistrates, leading to a flood of such petitions, and noting the Government Order dated 10.3.2025 issued pursuant to the Court's orders requiring compliance with those timelines, the Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the application in the light of the Government Order dated 10.03.2025 most expeditiously and preferably within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order, unless there is no legal impediment; if the decision had already been taken, it was to be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 34061 of 2025

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Gauri Dubey, Gautam Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶9

The petitioner has preferred present petition with the prayer to direct the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the application dated 28.01.2024 being application No.647 of 2024 for grant of Firearm License to the petitioner.

¶10

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application for grant of firearm license has been filed by the petitioner on 28.01.2024 before the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Azamgarh. It is argued that considerable time has already been lapsed but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter.

¶11

On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the respondent No.2 will take a decision in the matter expeditiously.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

Time and again such kind of matters are coming before this Court for deciding the application for grant of Firearm License which are pending before the District Magistrate concerned. The Arms Act and the Rules itself provide the timeline within which such applications are to be decided. However, the aforesaid timeline are not being honoured by the District Magistrate concerned and as a result of the same, flood of litigation are coming before this Court for seeking direction that the application for grant of fire arms license/renewal of arms license be decided in a time bound manner. The Court has passed various orders in such type of matters and pursuant to the decision taken by this Court, the Government has issued a

¶14

WRIC No. 34061 of 2025

¶15

¶16

Government Order dated 10.3.2025 directing all the District Magistrates to comply with the timelines provided for consideration of the application for grant of firearm license.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, Azamgarh to decide the aforesaid application in the light of Government Order dated 10.03.2025 most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order unless there is no legal impediment.

¶18

In case the decision has already been taken by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh on the aforesaid application, the same will be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶19

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶20

September 25, 2025

¶21

Pramod Tripathi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases