Disposed¶14

Sangam Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Apr 2026WRIC/13245/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; direction to decide pending application dated 08.01.2026; District Magistrate Fatehpur; arms licence; alleged suppression of pendency of criminal case by licensee; Arms Act and Rules; licensing authority empowered to cancel or suspend licence; six-week time bound direction; writ disposed without entering merits; Allahabad High Court; Vinod Diwakar, J.; April 15, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 (District Magistrate, Fatehpur) to decide the petitioner's application dated 08.01.2026 strictly in accordance with law within six weeks from production of a certified copy of the order; if already decided, the petition is to be treated as infructuous. ¶14

Sangam Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 13245 of 2026

Sangam Lal

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Kunwar Mayank Singh : C.S.C., Sabhajeet

¶9

Court No. - 37

¶10

HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

¶11

Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶12

The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2- District Magistrate, Fatehpur to decide the petitioner's application dated 08.01.2026, pending before him at the earliest.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 is pending consideration since 08.01.2026 and no decision has been taken thereon till date. It is further submitted that respondent no. 3, at the time of obtaining the arms license, deliberately suppressed material facts by not disclosing the pendency of a criminal case against him, which renders the grant of such license liable to be examined in accordance with law. It is contended that respondent no. 2, being the licensing and competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Arms Act and Rules, is duly empowered to inquire into such suppression and take appropriate action, including cancellation or suspension of the license. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a suitable direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's pending application, strictly in accordance with law, within a stipulated time frame, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

¶14

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and without entering into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's application

¶15

WRIC No. 13245 of 2026

¶16

¶17

dated 08.01.2026, strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

It is further provided that in the event the aforesaid application has already been decided, the present writ petition shall be treated as having been rendered infructuous.

¶19

April 15, 2026 A. Tripathi

¶20

(Vinod Diwakar,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangam Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangam Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Similar cases

Smt. Sangeeta Singh vs the State of U.P. and 9 Others

Sheikh Sahil Azmi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ram Ashok and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshuman Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anshuman Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others