Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26092 (ALL)

SARVAGYA BARANWAL v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/6611/2025 · 2025-03-04

Vikram D Chauhan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31322 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6611 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sarvagya Baranwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2&3 to grant the license of the Revolver/Pistol to the petitioner in pursuance of the application moved by him dated 18.07.2024 within specified period as stipulated by this Hon'ble court. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2&3 to take final decision in pursuance of the application moved by him dated 18.07.2024 for granting llicense of the Revolver /Pistol in favor of the petitioner within specified period as stipulated by this Hon'ble court." 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has applied for of arms licence before the respondent no. 2 in the year 2024, however, till date the aforesaid application of the petitioner has not been decided by the concerned authority. 4. It is to be seen that before this Court large number of petitions are being filed for directing the licencing authorities to consider the application for grant/renewal of arms licence of the applicants. The aforesaid large number of petitions are indicative of the fact that licencing authorities are not considering the applications for grant/renewal of arms licence in a time bound manner. The same may be indicative of red tapism, negligence or corrupt practices. The applications of the citizens are required to be considered by the authorities in a time bound manner so that citizens do not face any difficulty on account of pendency of their applications. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence would be decided in a time bound manner. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that application of the petitioner for grant/renewal of arms licence is pending consideration before the respondent no. 2, it is hereby directed that application for grant/renewal of arms licence of the petitioner shall be decided by the licencing authority within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is hereby also provided that in the event the aforesaid application of the petitioner for grant/renewal of arms licence is not disposed of within the period herein above granted, the petitioner would be entitled to cost/compensation @ Rs.100/- per day (for each day delay after two months) which is to be paid by the respondent no. 2 at the first instance and the same would be recoverable by the respondent no. 2 from the salary of the erring officials. This cost/compensation is in addition to the other legal remedies available to the petitioner including the enforcement of the present order, accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Aiman Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AIMAN FAROOQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad