SATISH CHANDRA PATHAK v. COMMISSIONER FAIZABAD DIVISION FAIZABAD and ANR.
WRIC/1007882/2015 · 2025-10-07
Jaspreet Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 139761 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 139761 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1007882 of 2015 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikram Soni, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Under challenge are the two orders dated 04.04.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of arms license was rejected which was further challenged in an appeal which also came to be dismissed on 01.05.2015. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a specific ground was taken by the petitioner that he being a practicing Advocate had raised certain queries and objections regarding anomalies conducted by the Municipal Authorities which also led to lodging of an FIR which had created a threat perception on the petitioner and his family members and in view thereof an application for grant of arms license was made which has been rejected on reasons which are not cogent and as such impugned orders are bad. Shri Soni Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has pointed out while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner liberty was granted to him to move a fresh application and in case if such a fresh application is moved, the same will be considered on its own merit. It is further urged that in view thereof, apparently there is no error in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Satish Chandra Pathak .....Petitioner(s) Commissioner Faizabad Division Faizabad And Anr. .....Respondent(s)
order passed by the District Magistrate or the Appellate Authority. However, the petitioner is at liberty of making a fresh application, hence for the aforesaid reason the petition deserves to be dismissed. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to take recourse and make a fresh application which may be considered on its own merit. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. October 7, 2025 ank WRIC No. 1007882 of 2015 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench