MOHD. SHAKEEL v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOMES LKO. AND 5 OTHERS
WRIC/10753/2025 · 2025-11-10
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 174773 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 174773 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10753 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Trideep Narayan Pandey, the learned State Counsel.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction for return of SBBL Gun No.5066, license No.445 in pursuance of the releasing order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the City Magistrate/Officer In-charge, Weapons on behalf of District Magistrate, Gonda.
3. The petitioner has contended that in spite of the release order, the gun has not been returned to him and it is wrongly been claimed by the authorities that the gun has been received by his brother Suhail.
4. A copy of the relevant extract of the Register containing signatures of Suhail in acknowledgment of receipt of gun, has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes correctness of this document.
6. Learned State Counsel has opposed the writ petition and he has submitted that the extract of Register indicates that the concerned official has handed over the gun in question to the petitioner's brother and the petitioner's brother has put his signatures in acknowledgement of receipt of the gun. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Singh Raj, Mohini Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohd. Shakeel .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Homes Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)
7. While exercising the extraordinary discretionary writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact that have emerged in this writ petition from the aforesaid statements and counter statements made by the petitioner and respondents and such questions can only be decided after taking evidence, which can appropriately be done in a civil suit.
8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to file a civil suit for redressal of his grievance. November 10, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 10753 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench