Allahabad High Court
WRIC/11860/2025 of SERAJ AHAMAD Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO AND 2 OTHERS on 10 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11860 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishal Tehlani, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. 2. By means of the instant petition, the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 11860 of 2025
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Shri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishal Tehlani, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer of explosive license which was granted to his father, to the petitioner consequent to death of his father.
3. The Arms License Application was rejected only on the ground that Clauses A and C falling in point No.2 on Application Form AE-5 were blank. The petitioner had filed an Appeal No.2509 of 2025 which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that reports were obtained from police and revenue department on the petitioner's application and were submitted in support of the petitioner's application.
5. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as the petitioner has not filled up the complete particulars in the application form, the application form has rightly been rejected for this reason.
6. From the aforesaid submissions, it appears that though the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has not committed any error or illegality in rejecting an application which did not contain complete particulars, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to provide the particulars that were missing in his Application Form AE-5. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vijay Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Seraj Ahamad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed off by providing that the petitioner shall submit the information required to be filled up in Clause A and C of point No.2 in Form AE-5, on which he had submitted the application for grant of license in his name, by filing an application before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate shall pass a fresh order after taking into consideration the supplementary information provided by the petitioner as well as the report submitted by the police and revenue department on the petitioner's application. The decision shall be taken within a period of two months from today. December 10, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 11860 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench