Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2181 (ALL)

Jagpal Singh v. State Of U. P.

2010-07-23

ABHINAVA UPADHYA, R.K.AGRAWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT: R.K. Agrawal, Abhinava Upadhya, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The delay in filing the present appeal has satisfactorily been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. 3. The application is accordingly allowed and the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. Now the appeal shall be treated to have been filed within the period of limitation. 4. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 18 of the Indian Arms Act. 5. The appellant has been granted firearm licence from the State of Jammu & Kashmir. He made an application for its renewal at Jhansi, which has been rejected. The said order was challenged in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal. We have heard Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal as also the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal lies only against the order refusing or cancelling the grant of arms licence and not against the order refusing to renew the licence as the District Magistrate, Jhansi is not the licensing authority in so far as the appellant is concerned. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and are of the considered opinion that if the licence has been obtained by the appellant from the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the renewal of same has to be done by the authorities of Jammu & Kashmir and not by the State of Uttar Pradesh. That being the position, the writ petition as also the order rejecting the prayer for renewal is wholly misplaced. The order of the learned Single Judge, therefore, does not call for any interference. 8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with the abover observation.