Disposed¶14

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2025WRIC/6866/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another; WRIT - C No. 6866 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33057; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 33); Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; Order Date 7.3.2025; arms licence application dated 17.12.2018 pending since 2018; mandamus to respondent no.2; decision within two months; cost/compensation Rs. 100/- per day for delay; recoverable from salary of erring officials; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 (licencing authority) to decide the petitioner's arms licence application within two months from production of certified copy of the order; on failure, petitioner entitled to cost/compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day of delay, payable by respondent no.2 and recoverable from the salaries of erring officials. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no.2 should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending application for grant of arms licence (made in 2018, dated 17.12.2018) within a specific time period fixed by the Court.

¶9

Court's answer

The licencing authority (respondent no.2) is directed to 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 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.

¶13

Key takeaways

The cost/compensation paid by respondent no.2 would be recoverable by it from the salary of the erring officials, and is in addition to the other legal remedies available to the petitioner.ratio¶13
Passing observation: the large number of petitions before the Court seeking directions to licencing authorities on arms licence applications indicates such applications are not being considered in a time bound manner, which may indicate red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices; citizens' applications ought to be considered in a time bound manner.obiter¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 6866 of 2025), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, disposed of by Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J. (Order Date 7.3.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:33057). The petitioner's fire arms (REVALVER/PISTOL) licence application dated 17.12.2018, filed before respondent no.2 in 2018, had remained undecided. The Court noted numerous similar petitions before it and observed that licencing authorities were not considering arms licence applications in a time bound manner. The licencing authority was directed to decide the petitioner's application within two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to cost/compensation @ Rs. 100/- per day of delay, payable by respondent no.2 at the first instance and recoverable by it from the salary of the erring officials, in addition to the petitioner's other legal remedies.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33057

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6866 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Tripathi,Manas Singh,Surya Prakash Pandey 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 directing the respondent no.2 to decide the fire arms application dated 17.12.2018 for grant of REVALVER/PISTOL license of petitioner, within specific period a may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶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 2018, 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 application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence is pending

¶13

consideration before the respondent no.2, 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 :- 7.3.2025 Bhaskar

¶16

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

Anil Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Tiwari 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

Mangaroo vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rekha Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nikhil Raj Dwivedi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gulabchand Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumar Harshit Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and Another