PRADEEP KUMAR TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the total inaction on the part of the District Magistrate, Allahabad - respondent No. 2 in not considering his application filed for grant of fire-arm licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Act) though it is allegedly pending since 2001.

(2.) It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner applied for fire-arm licence by submitting application on 6.6.2001, which was numbered as Application No. 349 of 2001, whereupon report of police authority was also called for, but no order has been passed so far for no valid reason. The competent authority - respondent No. 2 is sitting tight over the matter for the last almost one decade. Since lot of writ petitions are coming to this Court raising similar grievance complaining inaction for period ranging for few months to few years, this Court noticing that here matter is pending for last almost a decade passed following order on 29.9.2011:

(3.) Pursuant thereto on behalf of respondent No. 2 counter-affidavit sworn by Shri Manoj. Kumar, City Magistrate/Officer Incharge (Arms), District Allahabad has been filed. Besides, an affidavit sworn by Shri Manoj Kumar (aforesaid) has also been filed separately with an attempt to explain reasons for delay in disposal of such application. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner did not file an application in 2001, but, in fact, submitted application under Section 13 of the Act on 8.6.2004. It is also said that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Sikandara, P.S. Bahariya, District Allahabad, but did not disclose the said address in his application. On the contrary, he has given his current and permanent address as 131B/90A/1B, Malakraj, District Allahabad and it is for this reason his application could not be disposed of. Respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of writ petition on the ground that petitioner is guilty of making wrong year of filing of application for grant of firearm licence and also for giving wrong address in application dated 8.6.2004. It is said that due to wrong address the application was not traceable and for this reason no appropriate decision could be taken earlier.