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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2165

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43633 of 2024

Petitioner :- Brijendra Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Patel 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 District Magistrate, District Jhansi (respondent no. 2) to renew the Arms License No. 326/2006 of P.S. Todi Fatehpur, District Jhansi having N.P. 315 Bore Rifle No. AB07-10040 Unique I.D. No. 602002804215, Weapon No. 5591850 of the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a short and stipulated period as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court.

¶9

(ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to take attention on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2024 in accordance with law. "

¶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 in the year 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 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

¶12

authorities in a time bound 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 renewal 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 renewal of arms licence is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2, 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 :- 6.1.2025 VMA

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijendra Kumar Yadav 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishvendra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Waseem Tyagi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neelu and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Kumar Kesarwani vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Tetari Devi @ Tetara Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others