Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 836 (UTT)

Mohd. Jafar v. District Magistrate, Haridwar

2016-11-17

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to grant Arms License in favour of the petitioner under the Arms Act, 1959. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to dispose of the application dated 26.09.2013 submitted by the petitioner (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a contractor and takes contracts in various districts of the State of Uttarakhand. He submitted that the petitioner, due to his profession, has to face criminals and other anti social elements of the society and also has to carry cash alongwith him, therefore, he has a risk of his life and money from the criminals and other antisocial elements of the society. Due to this reason, the petitioner for his self defense, moved an application on 26.09.2013 before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar for grant of Arms License. After considering the said application, the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar directed the concerned authorities i.e. Tehsildar and S.S.P., Udham Singh Nagar to submit their reports. It is alleged that though the concerned authorities have submitted their reports, but no further action has been taken by the District Magistrate so far. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned for the petitioner argued that Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 provides that application filed for grant of arms licenses should be decided within the prescribed time. He submitted that, in the case in hand, the said application was filed on 26.09.2013, but the same has not been decided so far. He submitted that, due to the pendency of the said application, the petitioner is facing great hardship and is being deprived of his lawful right. He also submitted that, in spite of best effort done by the petitioner, the said application has not been decided till date. 5. I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the papers available on record. 6. In my considered view, the application of such a nature should not be kept pending for a long period. In the present case, the said application was filed on 26.09.2013 and about three years have passed, but the same has not been decided so far. 7. 6. In my considered view, the application of such a nature should not be kept pending for a long period. In the present case, the said application was filed on 26.09.2013 and about three years have passed, but the same has not been decided so far. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar to decide the application of the petitioner dated 26.09.2013 for grant of arms license, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 8. There will be no order as to costs.