OM PRAKASH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father held an arms licence. He died in the year 2004. The petitioner, being the son applied for an arms licence as an heir. The weapon was deposited with an arms dealer. The petitioner's application remained pending since 2004. Since no action was taken, the petitioner was forced to file writ petition No. 21915 of 2013 and, during the pendency of the writ petition, the authorities issued an order sanctioning an arms licence to the petitioner. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous. Armed with the licence, the petitioner approached the arms dealer to collect the weapon but, to his dismay, the dealer informed that the weapon was lost. The petitioner, accordingly, filed an application on 6.8.2013 before the District Magistrate intimating him about the loss of the weapon at the hands of the dealer and requested that he should exercise his powers and take action against the dealer or lodge a first information report about the loss of the weapon.

(2.) Since no action was taken by the District Magistrate, the present writ petition was filed for a writ of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate to take appropriate action against the respondent No. 4 namely, the arms dealer.

(3.) This Court directed that notices should be served to the arms dealer through the office of the District Magistrate. Initially, a perfunctory exercise was made intimating this Court that the respondent No. 4 is not traceable and that he is working somewhere in Bangalore. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 appeared before the Court and filed his counter-affidavit admitting that the weapon is missing and that he approached the police station for lodging a first information report, which was refused and he further approached the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad seeking help to lodge a first information report, which also failed. The respondent No. 4 has further stated, which is very startling namely, that his licence to run an arms shop was valid till 31.12.2003 and that he applied for renewal, which remained pending in the office of the District Magistrate and eventually, when all efforts failed he filed an application on 13.5.2005 for surrendering his licence and requested the District Magistrate to transfer the weapons lying in his shop to another arms dealer as he is no longer running the shop. The respondent No. 4 contended that even this application remained pending and no action was taken on it for vested reasons. The said respondent contended that he is not doing any business from the shop in question and the same is closed and the keys are with the landlord.