HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 209 of 2009 (M/S) Karnail Singh & another …. Petitioners .. Versus State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents Mr. Prem Prakash Phartiyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 7th December, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Prem Prakash Phartiyal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent authorities who have not passed any order on the application moved by the petitioners for grant of arms license under the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioners contend that they need arms license and both of them have separately applied for arms license before the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. According to the averments made in the writ petition, petitioner no. 1 applied for an arms license way-back in the year 2000. Petitioner no. 2 had applied for the arms license in the year 2005. However, the District Magistrate, who is the authority under the Arms Act has categorically denied the assertion of petitioner no. 1 of having ever applied for arms license. The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit has clearly stated that no such application is on record of petitioner no. 1. As far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, the authority accepts that such an application has been filed, though according to the 2 District Magistrate it was filed only on 23.1.2009 and not in the year 2005, as is being alleged. These averments made by the District Magistrate have gone unrebutted, in the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner. In view of the admitted position as above, as far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he is at liberty to move a fresh application under the Arms Act before the District Magistrate, who shall consider it in accordance with law. Since respondent no. 2 has admitted that an application has been moved by petitioner no. 2, though in the year 2009, the District Magistrate shall consider such application and decide the same in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 7.12.2009 Avneet