Alok Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2025WRIC/6208/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms licence; mandamus; family heirloom transfer; District Collector Prayagraj; time-bound disposal of licence applications; cost/compensation Rs.100 per day for delay; recovery from salary of erring officials; red tapism; Allahabad High Court; writ disposed of; neutral citation 2025:AHC:30018.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with direction that the petitioner's pending arms licence application before respondent no.2 (District Collector, Prayagraj) be decided by the licencing authority within two months from production of certified copy of the order; in default, cost/compensation @ Rs.100/per day of delay after two months 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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether a mandamus should issue commanding respondent no.2 to sanction the petitioner's arms licence (NPB Revolver No.K0604, NPB Rifle No.AB023340, Licence No.8665/P.S. Colonelganj) on account of family heirloom transfer pursuant to application dated 22.07.2022. +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

The 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 the order.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

If the arms licence application is not disposed of within the granted period of two months, the petitioner would be entitled to cost/compensation @ Rs.100/per day for each day of delay after two months, payable by respondent no.2 at the first instance and recoverable by respondent no.2 from the salary of the erring officials, in addition to other legal remedies.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

The large number of petitions seeking directions to licencing authorities indicates that such authorities are not considering applications for grant/renewal of arms licence in a time bound manner, which may be indicative of red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices.obiter¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:30018), WRIT - C No. 6208 of 2025, single bench of Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J., order dated 4.3.2025. Petitioner Alok Singh sought mandamus commanding respondent no.2 (District Collector, Prayagraj) to sanction arms licence (NPB Revolver No.K0604, NPB Rifle No.AB023340, Licence No.8665/P.S. Colonelganj) on account of family heirloom transfer pursuant to application dated 22.07.2022, which had remained undecided since 2022. Observing that numerous similar petitions indicate licencing authorities do not decide grant/renewal applications in a time bound manner, possibly reflecting red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices, the Court disposed of the petition by directing decision within two months from production of certified copy of the order, failing which cost/compensation @ Rs.100/per day of delay would be payable by respondent no.2 and recoverable from the salaries of erring officials, in addition to other legal remedies.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:30018

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6208 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Alok Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Ojha,D.K.Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶8

"(a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to sanction him Arms license of NPB Revolver No.K0604, NPB Rifle No.AB023340 and Licence No.8665/P.S. Colonelganj to the petitioner on account of family heir loom transfer in pursuant application dated 22.07.2022.

¶9

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to act in accordance with law."

¶10

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 2022 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/renewal 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/renewal 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.

¶12

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

¶13

Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2-District Collector, Prayagraj, 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 :- 4.3.2025 D. Tamang

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alok Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Singh 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Singh vs Senior / Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank and 2 Others

Gajendra Singh vs Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and Another

Vijay Narayan Rai vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Shankar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another