Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the total inaction on the part of the District Magistrate, Allahabad - respondent No. 2 in not considering his application filed for grant of fire-arm licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the Act) though it is allegedly pending since 2001.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner applied for fire-arm licence by submitting application on 6.6.2001, which was numbered as Application No. 349 of 2001, whereupon report of police authority was also called for, but no order has been passed so far for no valid reason. The competent authority - respondent No. 2 is sitting tight over the matter for the last almost one decade. Since lot of writ petitions are coming to this Court raising similar grievance complaining inaction for period ranging for few months to few years, this Court noticing that here matter is pending for last almost a decade passed following order on 29.9.2011 :

“Put up tomorrow to enable learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to how application for grant of firearm licence is pending for the last ten years and no orders has been passed.”

3. Pursuant thereto on behalf of respondent No. 2 counter-affidavit sworn by Shri Manoj Kumar, City Magistrate/Officer Incharge (Arms), District Allahabad has been filed. Besides, an affidavit sworn by Shri Manoj Kumar (aforesaid) has also been filed separately with an attempt to explain reasons for delay in disposal of such application. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner did not file an application in 2001, but, in fact, submitted application under Section 13 of the Act on 8.6.2004. It is also said that the petitioner is permanent resident of village Sikandara, P.S. Bahariya, District Allahabad, but did not disclose the said address in his application. On the contrary, he has given his current and permanent address as 131B/90A/1B, Malakraj, District Allahabad and it is for this reason his application could not be disposed of. Respondent No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of writ petition on the ground that petitioner is guilty of making wrong year of filing of application for grant of firearm licence and also for giving wrong address in application dated 8.6.2004. It is said that due to wrong address the application was not traceable and for this reason no appropriate decision could be taken earlier.

4. In the separate affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it is said that under Arms Act and Rules framed thereunder no period has been prescribed within which firearm licence ought to be granted or application be disposed of. Reference is made to the Full Bench Decision in Rana Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1996 Cr LJ 665 (FB). It is said that in the office of respondent No. 2 two posts of arms clerk are sanctioned and no additional staff has been provided for maintenance of application/records pertaining to firearm licence. In the last ten years, i.e. from year 2000 - 09, as per upto date information, which is likely to be rectified, 28967 applications were received; while during this period licensing authority has granted 10445 fire-arms licences. It is said that more than 18000 applications are still pending, though the correct information is yet under inquiry. Being Head of the district, the District Magistrate has multifarious duties relating to different departments besides pursuing pending Court cases. On account of these activities, a very little time is available to licensing authority to take appropriate decision on Applications for firearm licence, yet respondent No. 2 is trying his best to attend applications and decide at the earliest. Further, in view of G.O. and the vulnerability involved, in case firearm licence is allowed to undeserved persons it may affect society otherwise. Quick decision on such application thus is not prudent and possible. It is not delay, which is material, but appropriate and correct decision ba