Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3104 (ALL)

OM PRAKASH MISHRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2013-12-19

TARUN AGARWALA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Supplementary counter-affidavit and affidavit of compliance filed on behalf of the District Magistrate reveal a pathetic state of affairs in the arms department of the Collectorate of Allahabad. The counter-affidavit indicates the laxity on the part of the officials in processing the application of respondent No. 4 and in handling the matter of the petitioner vis-a-vis grant of arms licence and thereafter on the application dated 6.8.2013. 6. Having perused these affidavits, the Court finds that no explanation was given by the District Magistrate as to why the petitioner’s application for grant of licence remained pending for 09 years. No explanation has been given as to why the application of respondent No. 4 for renewal of his licence remained pending for 09 years. No explanation has been given as to why the application of respondent No. 4 for surrendering his licence has not been processed. No explanation has been given as to why the weapon lying in the shop of the respondent No. 4 was not transferred since 2005. No explanation has been furnished as to why a first information report was not lodged when the respondent No. 4 approached the police authorities. This reflects the working conditions of the arms department of the Collectorate of Allahabad. 7. This Court has noticed that not only in this case but in other matters, the Collectorate of Allahabad especially the arms department, is not processing the application in transparent, fair or proper manner. Licences are cancelled, which are not served and on the other hand, the said licences are being renewed by the same office. Applications for grant of arms licence are pending for years. The Court has been informed that thousands of applications for grant of arms licence are pending in the office of the arms department of the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Applications for renewal of the arms licence are pending for more than 10 years. These reflect the sorry state of affairs in the Collectorate of Allahabad. The Court has been informed that thousands of applications for grant of arms licence are pending in the office of the arms department of the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Applications for renewal of the arms licence are pending for more than 10 years. These reflect the sorry state of affairs in the Collectorate of Allahabad. This Court was constrained to call the District Magistrate, Allahabad in person so that he could be apprised of the aforesaid situation and this order is being passed in his presence. 8. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court by an interim order had directed the respondent No. 4 to deposit the cost of the weapon, pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was deposited. This Court also directed the District Magistrate to lodge a first information report against respondent No. 4, which was duly lodged and investigation was made. The Standing Counsel has now informed that a charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court on 18.12.2013. This Court had further directed the District Magistrate to hold an enquiry and take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officials. Affidavit of compliance filed, indicates dereliction of duty etc. by three officials namely, Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Aiyaz Ahmad and Hari Prasad Jaiswal. The affidavit further indicates that Hari Prasad Jaiswal has retired and, therefore, disciplinary proceeding against him has been dropped and after receiving the replies of the employees, the matter has been forwarded to the Commissioner, who is the appointing authority of these two officials for necessary action. The Court has been informed that disciplinary action would be taken within a period of two weeks. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) Action against the erring officials, as indicated aforesaid, shall be taken by the competent authority within four weeks from today. Such action taken would be reflected in the service records of these two officials. Action taken, if any, would be informed to the Registrar General of this Court. (b) Charge-sheet, if any, should be filed within a week before the competent Court. (c) Investigation into the loss of the weapon should be duly investigated and appropriate measure be taken in this regard as early as possible preferably within six weeks from today. Action taken, if any, would be informed to the Registrar General of this Court. (b) Charge-sheet, if any, should be filed within a week before the competent Court. (c) Investigation into the loss of the weapon should be duly investigated and appropriate measure be taken in this regard as early as possible preferably within six weeks from today. (d) If the weapon is traced out, the same shall be kept in the armoury of the State Government. (e) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 60,000/- by moving an appropriate application before the Registrar General. If the petitioner is identified by his counsel, the Registrar General will release the amount in favour of the petitioner. (f) It would be open to the petitioner to purchase a similar weapon within six months from today and have it endorsed in the licence, which has been sanctioned to the petitioner. (g) In the event, the petitioner is not inclined to purchase the weapon, the licence sanctioned shall be surrendered before the competent authority within the same period. (h) The District Magistrate will take appropriate measures in revamping the arms department and if necessary weed out the dead wood and take action against the corrupt staff as early as possible. 10. A certified copy of this order will be made available to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.