Gujarat High Court High Court

Lalbihari vs State on 23 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Lalbihari vs State on 23 December, 2010
Author: Mr.S.J.Mukhopadhaya,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Thaker,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/1628/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1628 of 2010
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3909 of 2010
 

with
 

CIVIL
APPLICATION No.8030 of 2010 
=========================================


 

LALBIHARI
SHUBHKARAN PANDE - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
PUSHPADATTA VYAS for Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR A.J. DESAI,
ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 
None for
Respondent(s) : 2, 
=========================================


 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
			 

 

			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 23/12/2010 

 

 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA)

It
appears that armed licence of the appellant was not renewed because
of delay in filing the application for renewal by more than one year.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under the rule, if
there was delay and the authority was not inclined to condone the
delay, they ought to have considered the matter as fresh application
for grant of licence. However, from the impugned order as we find
that the revolver in question was used in a murder case and the
incident took place on 4.7.2010, and admittedly on that day there was
no valid armed licence in favour of the appellant, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. This apart, we also find that no special case is made out by
the counsel for the appellant to allow him to keep revolver in his
possession. Appeal and CA both are accordingly dismissed. No
costs.

(S.J.

Mukhopadhaya, C.J.)

(K.M.Thaker,
J.)

*/Mohandas

   

Top