Shivom vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35399

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4366 of 2025

Petitioner :- Shivom Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Shivajee Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶7

This Court on 17.2.2025 has passed the following order :-

¶8

" 1. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶9

"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to grant the Arms License of Pistol/revolver in favour of petitioner for safety and security.

¶10

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus the respondent No.2/District Magistrate, District Mainpuri to decide the Arms Application dated 02.06.2022 of petitioner within stipulated period which is pending before the respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition)."

¶11

2. It is being observed by this Court that several writ petitions are being filed for deciding the application for grant of fire arms 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.

¶12

3. This Court prima facie is of the opinion that if there is a direction of the law to decide the application within a time bound manner then same should be timely decided in a time bound manner except when for reasons to be recorded the same could not be issued. However, authorities are not honouring the time prescribed.

¶13

4. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General is requested by this Court to examine the matter and obtain instructions from the Principal Secretary (Home) that why the applications are not being decided in a time bound manner as timeline prescribed under the Act and what steps have been taken so that the litigation do not come before this Court for issuing directions to the authority concerned to exercise the power of licensing authority.

¶14

5. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General may apprise this Court the decision of the Government in this respect.

¶15

6. List this case on 11.3.2025 as fresh. "

¶16

In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 17.2.2025, Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondentState has produced the Government Order dated 10.3.2025 directing all the District Magistrates to comply with the timelines provided for consideration of the application for firearm license. Learned Chief Standing Counsel submits that the District Magistrates have been instructed by the State for strict compliance of the aforesaid order. Large number of petitions are being filed before this Court seeking direction to the District Magistrates to consider the firearm license pending and some cases are found to be pending for more than three years which only reflects that the licensing authorities are not following the mandate of law. The State Government has already issued direction on 10.3.2025 and the strict compliance of the same is required.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid since State has already issued directions for considering the firearm license, it is hereby directed that the District Magistrates in the State of U.P., who are the licensing authority under the Arms Act, shall prepare the data with regard to the pending firearm applications under the Arms Act within 45 days and the aforesaid data shall be submitted before the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. or any officer nominated by him. If any application under the Arms Act is found pending beyond the time granted under the Arms Rules and the Arms Act, the District Magistrates would be bound to decide the same. It is made clear that the citizens cannot be forced to come to this Court for only seeking direction that the particular officer may exercise its power. It is the duty of the officer to exercise the statutory direction which has been conferred on the aforesaid officer.

¶18

This Court is not taking any action on account of the fact that learned Chief Standing Counsel has assured this Court that

¶19

application filed for firearm license would be decided in a time bound manner. If the District Magistrates do not follow the same then the aforesaid District Magistrates shall be considered for remedial measures by the Chief Secretary and officer nominated by him. If the District Magistrates find that any officer of the State is creating hindrance by not submitting the report in time, the District Magistrates shall ensure action against the aforesaid officer concerned and all the department of the State including the Police Department shall act in the aid of the District Magistrates for decision on the firearm license applications.

¶20

The District Magistrates shall regularly monitor the applications which are pending in the districts. The State shall evolve a mechanism for monitoring of the pending applications to ensure that the same are timely decided.

¶21

The Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate the present order to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., who shall sent the present order to all the District Magistrates/Licensing Authorities in the State of U.P. for necessary compliance.

¶22

Insofar as the present case is concerned, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that arms license application of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 7.3.2025 and a copy of the same has been provided to learned counsel for the petitioner today. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition subject to the abovementioned direction to the State Authority is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 VMA

¶25

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

Shivom v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivom 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

Ashok Kumar Yadav vs Bundelkhand University Jhansi and 4 Others

Ravi Kumar Alias Ravi Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Abadi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangala Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dilshad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Shankar Gupta vs Chief Secretary Irrigation and Water Resources Department and Another