Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 193 (ALL)

SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-01-30

ANJANI KUMAR

body2002
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was dismissed after hearing the counsel for the parties by me vide order dated 30. 1. 2002 for the reasons to be recorded later on. ( 2 ) NOW here are the reasons for dismissing the writ petition. ( 3 ) PETITIONER who has been denied for grant of fire arms licence by the Licensing Authority, has approached this Court earlier, to the present writ petition. This Court issued a direction, which is annexure-1 to the writ petition. The direction issued by this Court is quoted below : "heard Sri Ravindra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he has been sanctioned a licence to possess fire arm on 29. 4. 1995. but the licence is not being issued to him in spile of the fact that about four years have expired. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that the District Magistrate. Etah, respondent No. 2 shall himself look into the matter and pass appropriate orders for delivery of licence to the petitioner if it has already been sanctioned and there is no legal impediment on the completion of necessary formalities by the petitioner. " ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the direction of this Court, the licensing authority considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the direction issued by this Court and rejected the petitioners application on the ground stated in the order that the file regarding application for grant of licence is not available in the office of the licensing authority and so far as the photostat copy of the order by which the then District Magistrate sanctioned the grant of the licence is concerned, there are two different orders of two different dates, i. e. , 10. 5. 1995 and 29. 4. 1995 are shown to have been passed sanctioning the licence to the petitioner. The District Magistrate goes on saying that on the basis of one police report, the then District Magistrate will pass two different orders on two different dates, cannot be presumed. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, a finding has been recorded that it appears that the aforesaid photostat copy which has been produced, is in fact, a forged document or at least suspicious in nature. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, a finding has been recorded that it appears that the aforesaid photostat copy which has been produced, is in fact, a forged document or at least suspicious in nature. Considering the aforesaid nature of the document, the District Magistrate has refused to grant licence. However, it is stated that in case the petitioner is interested in obtaining the licence, he should apply afresh which shall be considered in accordance with law. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner tries to make out a capital of the case by annexing a list of the files which has been transferred from one office of the District Magistrate to another office of the District Magistrate. But from the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the District magistrate has given sufficient and cogent reasons for not entertaining the application of the petitioner. However, the District Magistrate has not closed the chapter and informed the petitioner that in case, he is still interested, he should apply afresh, in case he files fresh application, his application will be dealt with in accordance with law. The petitioner has not stated that he has applied afresh as directed by the District Magistrate and in case the fresh application is rejected, the petitioner has the remedy to challenge the order of the licensing authority before the appellate authority and thereafter before this Court. So far as the Annexure-6 to the writ petition, impugned order is concerned, the District Magistrate has given sufficient and cogent reasons for not granting the licence to the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the impugned order (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) THE petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. ( 9 ) INTERIM order, if any, stands vacated. ( 10 ) THERE will, however, be no order as to cost. .