# Man Singh v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1463
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-27
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/man-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43775
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

5 All. Man Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.

1463
16. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and orders dated
5.7.2001 and 28.8.2001 passed by Tribunal and order dated 7.9.1994 passed by respondent no.2
rejecting petitioner's representation are hereby set aside.

17. Now the question is about further relief which can be granted to petitioner. Since
petitioner had a right to be promoted as 'Blacksmith' before Gyan Singh who belong to a different
cadre of 'Hammerman' but already promoted and could not have been adjusted against existing
vacancy of 'Blacksmith' to defeat and ignore claim of petitioner for promotion on the post of
'Blacksmith', hence we direct that petitioner shall be treated to be promoted as 'Blacksmith' from
the date Gyan Singh was treated to be appointed on the said post of 'Blacksmith' and shall be
entitled for all consequential benefits. Respondent railway authorities however shall be entitled to
recover amount of salary which may be payable to petitioner pursuant to this judgment for the
period he did not discharge responsibilities of higher post of 'Blacksmith' from responsible erring
officials for whose fault petitioner suffered and stood denied his lawful claim for promotion on the
post of 'Blacksmith' after holding such inquiry as permissible under the Rules.

18. Since petitioner has been unnecessarily dragged in entire litigation twice before
Tribunal and then before this Court, which could have been avoided by respondents if acted with
due care and caution, petitioner is held entitled to cost quantified to Rs.25,000/-.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ C No.- 25792 Of 2016

Man Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Raghvendra Dwivedi, Chandra Prakash Garg

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C..

Arms Act - Firearm Licence - Transfer of Licence - Inaction by Licensing Authority - Pendency of
Application - Writ of Mandamus - Disposal of Representation - Speaking Order - No
Adjudication on Merits

The petitioner approached this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the respondents in not deciding
his application dated 16.02.2015 seeking transfer of firearm licence.
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Learned Standing Counsel stated that in case the application was still pending, the same would be considered
and decided expeditiously.

Held that where a statutory authority fails to decide an application within a reasonable time, the High Court,
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, may issue a writ of mandamus directing
consideration and decision of such application, without entering into the merits of the claim.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and
circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and
decide the petitioner's application for transfer of firearm licence by a reasoned and speaking order within a
period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was finally disposed of.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he applied for transfer of firearm licence vide
application dated 16.2.2015 but the said application has not yet been decided by the respondents.

3. Learned Standing Counsel fairly states that in case the application is still pending and
has not been disposed of, the same will be considered and decided expeditiously.

4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of finally with a
direction to the competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's aforesaid application by a
speaking order within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of
this order before him.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. TAHIR, J.

Writ C No.- 11200 Of 2002

Shri Tulsi Smarak Samiti Rajapur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
D.M. Chitrakoot & Ors. ...Respondents