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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent no. 2 / licencing authority should be directed, via writ of mandamus, to grant/transfer arms licence no. 676/II (DBBL Gun No. 82448, 12 bore) to the petitioner as legal heir of the licensee under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016, and to decide his pending application (form no. 4903) in a time bound manner.

Court's answer

Considering that the petitioner's application for grant of arms licence remains pending before respondent no. 2, it is directed that the application shall be decided by the licencing authority within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Ratio / Principle

In the event the 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 thereafter, to be paid by respondent no. 2 at the first instance.

Key takeaways

The cost/compensation payable at first instance by respondent no. 2 is recoverable by respondent no. 2 from the salary of the erring officials, and is in addition to the other legal remedies available to the petitioner including enforcement of the present order in accordance with law.ratio¶13
Observation (not necessary to the disposition): the large number of petitions filed before this Court seeking directions to licencing authorities to consider arms licence applications indicates such authorities are not considering applications in a time bound manner, which may be indicative of red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices, and citizens' applications are required to be considered in a time bound manner.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Vikram D. Chauhan, J.), Writ Petition (C) No. 641 of 2025 — Nazar Ali v. State of U.P. and Another; disposed of on 10.1.2025 [Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:5614]. The petitioner, a legal heir of the licensee, prayed for mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to grant/transfer arms licence no. 676/II (DBBL Gun No. 82448 of 12 bore) under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016, and to decide his pending application/form no. 4903 lodged since 2023. The Court observed that the large volume of similar petitions indicates licencing authorities are not deciding arms licence applications time bound, which may indicate red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices. Directing time-bound disposal, the Court ordered respondent no. 2 to decide the application within two months from production of a certified copy of the order, failing which the petitioner becomes entitled to cost/compensation @ Rs.100/- per day of delay, payable by respondent no. 2 at first instance and recoverable from the salaries of the erring officials, in addition to other legal remedies including enforcement of the order.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5614

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 641 of 2025

Petitioner :- Nazar Ali Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamla Singh,Vijay Shanker Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer :-

" (i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 to grant/transfer the licence no. 676/II DBBL Gun No. 82448 of, 12 bore, in the name of petitioner being a legal heir of the licencee under Rule 25 of the Arms Rules 2016.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 to consider and decide the application/form no. 4903 of the petitioner which is pending before him. "

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 2023, however, till date the aforesaid application of the petitioner has not been decided by the concerned authority.

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.

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

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, 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.

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

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 VMA

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