Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRADEEP MITTAL versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAREILLY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pradeep Mittal v. State Of U.P. Thru' District Magistrate, Bareilly - WRIT - C No. 8905 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3379 (14 February 2006)

 

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

HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for issuance of an arm license.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner that the application of the petitioner was not being considered. Then the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 14513 of 2003. The same was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner within 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the criminal case is pending. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the criminal case, the petitioner has already been acquitted. The petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority has set aside the order-dated 28.2.2003 and the case has been remanded to the competent authority for consideration of the application of the petitioner for issuance of the license. But the competent authority, District Magistrate, Bareilly has not considered the application and that is still pending for consideration. Hence the present writ petition.  

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider the application of the petitioner and decide the same. The aforesaid exercise will be done by the respondent no.1 preferably within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It is made clear that while passing the order, respondent no.1 will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

14.2.2006

V.Sri/-

W.P. No.8905 of 2006


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.