Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAVU NATH PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pravu Nath Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 31665 of 2002 [2005] RD-AH 5224 (7 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31665 of 2002

Pravu Nath Pandey              Vs.           State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

Despite time having been granted, no counter affidavit has yet been filed and thus this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself without the counter affidavit.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted arms licence on 10.3.1993 by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dimapur, Nagaland. During the election, in the year 1997, the petitioner was required to deposit his licenced gun. Since the respondents did not return the gun of the petitioner after the election, despite the petitioner having filed several representations, the petitioner has thus filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 to release the arms licence of the petitioner as well as his gun which was deposited by him on 30.10.1997 with the respondent no. 3.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction that in case if, with regard to his grievances made in this writ petition, the petitioner files a fresh comprehensive representation before respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Ballia alongwith a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent either himself or through any other competent officer, duly authorized by him, in accordance with law by a speaking order,  expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the same.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.  

Dt/-7.11.2005

PS


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.