Disposed¶14

Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Arms Licence – Mandamus

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2025WRIC/41404/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms licence application; Arms Act, 1995 s.13; Arms Rules 2016 Rule 25; mandamus for time-bound disposal; licencing authority delay; cost/compensation Rs.100 per day recoverable from erring officials' salary; respondent no.2; WRIT - C No. 41404 of 2024; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; decided 16.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:7320

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction to the licencing authority to decide the petitioner's arms licence application within two months from production of certified copy of the order; failing that, cost/compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day payable by respondent no.2 at first instance and recoverable from the salary of erring officials, in addition to other legal remedies available to the petitioner. ¶14

Ashish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the licencing authority should be commanded, by way of mandamus, to decide the petitioner's application for grant of arms licence within a stipulated period. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The licencing authority shall decide the petitioner's application for grant of arms licence within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

If the application is not disposed of within the period granted, the petitioner would be entitled to cost/compensation at Rs. 100/- per day for each day of delay beyond two months.

¶13

Key takeaways

The cost/compensation is to be paid by respondent no.2 at the first instance and would be recoverable by respondent no.2 from the salary of the erring officials.ratio¶13
The cost/compensation is in addition to the other legal remedies available to the petitioner, including enforcement of the order.ratio¶13
The large number of similar petitions before the Court indicates that licencing authorities are not considering applications for grant of arms licence in a time bound manner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arms Licence - Mandamus - Application under s.13, Arms Act, 1995 r/w Rule 25, Arms Rules 2016 pending before respondent no.2 - Licencing authority directed to decide application within two months from production of certified copy of order - On default, cost/compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day payable by respondent no.2 at first instance and recoverable from salary of erring officials - Cost in addition to other legal remedies including enforcement of order - Observation that volume of similar petitions indicates licencing authorities not acting time bound, possibly reflecting red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices - Writ petition disposed of. (Allahabad High Court; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; Order Date 16.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:7320)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7320

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41404 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Banshi Dhar Mishra 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

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding to decide application dated 06.08.2024 for grant of Arms License to the petitioner which is pending from 30.07.2022 filed u/s 13 of Arms Act, 1995 r/w rule No.25 of Arms Rules 2016 within stipulated period."

¶9

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 2024, however, till date the aforesaid application of the petitioner has not been decided by the concerned authority.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that

¶13

application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence is pending consideration before the respondent no.2, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Bhaskar

¶16

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kumar 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

Similar cases

Chhitariya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Sadhana vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Vakil Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gunda vs State of U.P.

Phoola Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others