Disposed¶14

Ashish Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2026WRIC/5940/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arms licence application; mandamus; direction to respondent No. 2; writ petition disposed of; three-month time-bound direction; District Magistrate, Pratapgarh; Form II, III & IV; Schedule-III, Form A-1; reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024; no opinion on merits; State of U.P. Home Department; Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's arms licence application bearing reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) pending before him, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. ¶14

Ashish Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's pending application for grant of a new arms licence (bearing reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024) expeditiously, within a time-bound period.

¶12

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's application bearing reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) pending before him.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The direction is that the application be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law.

¶14

Key takeaways

The Court made clear that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Sudhanshu Chauhan, J. — WRIT - C No. 5940 of 2026, decided June 4, 2026: The petitioner sought a mandamus commanding opposite party no. 2 to decide his application for grant of a new arms licence in Form II, III & IV, filed under Schedule-III, Form A-1 (for Individuals), bearing reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024, pending before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law, and expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 5940 of 2026

Ashish Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Another	Home Lko. And .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Avinash Pandey, Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 5

¶8

HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for the following relief:-

¶11

" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to decide the application for grant of new Arms License in Form II, III & IV, filed under Schedule-III, Form A-1(for Individuals), bearing reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024 pending before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, as expeditiously as early as possible, in the interest of justice (contained as Annexure No.-1), as expeditiously as early as possible, in the interest of justice."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a suitable direction be issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner's application for grant of an arms licence expeditiously, within a time-bound period.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and that an appropriate direction may be issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the matter.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application of the petitioner bearing reference No. 33008A18A9D24 dated 24.6.2024 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) pending before him, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a

¶15

WRIC No. 5940 of 2026

¶16

¶17

certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.

¶18

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶19

June 4, 2026 Gaurav

¶20

(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashish Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Similar cases

Ram Shiromani and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Ankit Kumar Gandhi vs Addl. Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and 9 Others

Shiv Kumar Pathak vs Additional Commissioner Ii, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and 5 Others

Shailendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 9 Others

Pravesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 3 Others

Sarvesh Kumar Mishra vs Shri Tungnath