# Masood Ahmad v. State Of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-30
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/masood-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43571
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application for execution is moved is not supposed to return the documents for presentation before
another court for the execution of the decree rather the said court is obliged to sent them directly to
such other court for execution. The decree shall then be executed by the court to which it is sent
unless it is transferred to some subordinate court of competent jurisdiction as if it was decree
passed by it.

7. A reading of the above provisions for the execution of the decree it is apparent that it is the
duty of the court which has passed the decree and before whom the application for execution is
moved to directly send the same for execution if it feels that the decree has to be executed by some
other court. The court is not supposed to return the documents to the decree holder for presenting it
to another court or the competent court.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 12.12.2015 in so
far it directs for return of the documents to the petitioner for presentation before the other court is
not inconsonance with the Rule 5 of Order 21 CPC.

9. Accordingly, the aforesaid order to the above extent is modified and the Tribunal is directed
to send the documents directly to the court at Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) for the execution of the
award/ the decree in question instead of returning the same to the petitioner.

10. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Writ C No.- 13821 Of 2016

Masood Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:
Sita Ram Vishwakarma

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C.

HELD:-

All applications for grant of firearm licences must be processed expeditiously.
Ordinarily, such applications should be decided within six months from the date of receipt.
4 All. Masood Ahmad Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
203
In any case, the outer limit shall not exceed one year, provided:
The application is complete,
There is no legal impediment in granting or considering the licence.

CASE LAW CITED:-

None

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

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

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has applied for firearm license vide application
dated 17.10.2012 before the District Magistrate, Kaushambi, respondent no. 2 but the said
application is not being considered.

3. It is noticed that every day several petitions raising similar grievance from practically all the
districts are coming up before the Court which is not a good sign rather is indicative of the fact that
the Licensing Authorities are either unable to devote time to these applications or are deliberately
delaying the same.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the interest of justice a general direction
is issued that all applications for firearm license should ordinarily be processed by the Licensing
Authorities expeditiously preferably within a period of six months with the outer limit of one year
from the date of receiving the same provided they are in order and there is no legal impediment in
considering the same.

5. Let this order be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for
circulation to all the Licensing Authorities/District Magistrates.

6. The writ petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ C No.- 39153 Of 2015

Radha Devi ...Petitioner
Versus