Allahabad High Court
SANGAM LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VINOD DIWAKAR
Holding
The High Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the petitioner’s pending application within six weeks, without entertaining the merits of the licence controversy.
Summary
The petitioner, Sangam Lal, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate of Fatehpur to decide his pending application dated 08‑01‑2026. He alleged that the licensing authority had suppressed material facts regarding a criminal case, which could affect the validity of his arms licence. The court, without delving into the merits of the licence issue, ordered the District Magistrate to decide the application strictly in accordance with law within six weeks of the certified copy of the order. If the application had already been decided, the petition would be deemed infructuous. The order was signed by Justice Vinod Diwakar and dated 15‑April‑2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the District Magistrate to decide a pending application under the Arms Act within a stipulated time.
- Whether suppression of material facts in an arms licence application warrants cancellation or suspension of the licence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Arms Act
- licensing
- district magistrate
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 13245 of 2026
Sangam Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kunwar Mayank Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sabhajeet
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing
the State-respondents.
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2- District
Magistrate, Fatehpur to decide the petitioner's application dated 08.01.2026,
pending before him at the earliest.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application preferred by
the petitioner before the respondent no.2 is pending consideration since
08.01.2026 and no decision has been taken thereon till date. It is further
submitted that respondent no. 3, at the time of obtaining the arms license,
deliberately suppressed material facts by not disclosing the pendency of a
criminal case against him, which renders the grant of such license liable to
be examined in accordance with law. It is contended that respondent no. 2,
being the licensing and competent authority under the relevant provisions of
the Arms Act and Rules, is duly empowered to inquire into such suppression
and take appropriate action, including cancellation or suspension of the
license. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
issue a suitable direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioner's
pending application, strictly in accordance with law, within a stipulated time
frame, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and without entering
into the merits of the case, the present writ petition is finally disposed of
with a direction to respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner's application
WRIC No. 13245 of 2026
2
dated 08.01.2026, strictly in accordance with law within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
5. It is further provided that in the event the aforesaid application has already
been decided, the present writ petition shall be treated as having been
rendered infructuous.
April 15, 2026
A. Tripathi
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AKHILESH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…