Disposed

M/S Skanda Armoury v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2023WP/2967/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by arms dealer seeking mandatory direction to issue licence or dispose application. Court disposed petition by directing authorities to consider representation and pass orders within four weeks. Order amended subsequent to correct scope of deal.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to consider petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

M/S Skanda Armoury Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 2967 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2967 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SKANDA ARMOURY, SHOP NO. 4, AKSHAYA ARCADE, KHATA NO. 115/125, WEAVER’S COLONY, ANEKAL, BANGALORE-562 106. REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT. ARPITHA. K

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NISHAD S. A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

UNDER SECRETARY TO HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, KG ROAD,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 2967 of 2023

¶18

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, SAMPANGIRAMANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶19

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, NO. 5, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶20

DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANEKAL SUB DIVISION, ELECTRONICS CITY, BANGALORE-560 099.

¶21

POLICE INSPECTOR, ANEKAL POLICE STATION, VINAYAKA NAGAR, ANEKAL-562 106.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. B.V.KRISHNA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECTING THE R-1 AND 2 TO PERMIT THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION DATED 02/12/2021 AND ISSUE LICENCE IN FORM VIII AND IX FOR ARMS AND AMMUNITION DEALERSHIP AND REPAIR IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER BASED ON THE REPORTS OF RECOMMENDATION OF R-3 TO 6. ALTERNATIVELY, TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 TO DISPOSE THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 02/12/2021 FOR ARMS LICENCE IN FORM VIII AND IX FOR ARMS AND AMMUNITION DEALERSHIP AND REPAIR IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 2967 of 2023

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶30

“(a) Issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 and 2 to permit the Petitioner’s application dated 02/12/2021 and issue licence in Form VIII and IX for arms and ammunition dealership and repair in the name of the Petitioner based on the reports of recommendation of Respondent Nos.3 to 6. Alternatively, to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose the Application of the Petitioner dated 02/12/2021 for arms licence in Form VIII and IX for arms and ammunition dealership and repair in the name of the Petitioner vide ANNEXURE – A.

¶31

(b) Pass such other orders or directions in favour of the Petitioners that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶32

The petitioner is a dealer in arms and ammunition and

¶33

did possess a valid license. On the expiry of the license, he makes a representation / application to respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 02.12.2021, for grant and renewal of the license for safe storage and repairs of arms and ammunition. He contends that

¶34

¶35

WP No. 2967 of 2023

¶36

plethora of representations have been submitted and the same are unheeded by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for the prayer as is quoted hereinabove.

¶37

Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that if four weeks time is granted, the application of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in accordance with law. The said submission is placed on record.

¶38

In the light of the said submission, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the concerned authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, if not earlier.

¶39

NVJ

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 86

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP No. 2967 of 2023

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶45

[M/S SKANDA ARMOURY VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS]

¶46

MNPJ

¶47

13.04.2023

¶48

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶49

ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’

¶50

This petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 09.03.2023. Owing to certain typographical error the petitioner has moved the matter for being spoken to.

¶51

According to learned counsel for the petitioner error has crept in the first line of the paragraph 2, wherein it is observed petitioner posses a valid license for dealing in arms and ammunition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has a dealership only for air weapons. Therefore the rest of the order would remain intact, and first two lines of paragraph No.2 will reads as follows:

¶52

"The petitioner is a dealer in air weapons and did possess a valid license for dealing in such air weapons".

¶53

¶54

WP No. 2967 of 2023

¶55

This order to be treated as part and parcel of the original

¶56

order.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83

M/S Skanda Armoury v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Skanda Armoury v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M S Lavanya Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajeshwari Vs the State of Karnataka

Aadhitya Adhikari Hospital Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Raghu Vs State of Karnataka

B Prashanth Hegde Vs State Bank of India

K Guddappa Kottary Vs Bharat Co. Operative Bank (Mumbai) Limited