Santosh Kumar Khaskalam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Santosh Kumar Khaskalam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 23, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1040901

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1040901
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jul 23, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santosh Kumar Khaskalam

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....yadav for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.7.2010 by which the petitioner has been prohibited to function as a dealer in arms on account of the fact that his licence has not been renewed. it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner had already filed applications for renewal which were pending before the authorities specifically the documents at pages 26, 29 and 31 of the petition, but instead of taking any decision thereon, the impugned order has been issued. it is further stated that the petitioner had also filed a representation before the district magistrate, betul on 23.10.2011 as well as before the secretary of the department on 11.4.2012 requesting them to decide the petitioner's representation for renewal of the licence and to permit him to work as an arms dealer but no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities and the matter has been kept pending thereby denying the petitioner his right to deal in arms.2 w.p.no.10383/2012 santosh kumar khaskalam versus state of m.p.& ors.shri s.s.bisen, the learned govt. advocate, on advance copy submits that the application filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the submission of the learned govt. advocate, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to look into the representation of the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of furnishing a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition on the concerned authority by the petitioner. with the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. c.c as per rules. ( r.s.jha.....

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.10383/2012 Santosh Kumar Khaskalam versus State of M.P.& ORS.23.07.2012 Heard Shri P.R.Bhave, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Bhanu Yadav for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.7.2010 by which the petitioner has been prohibited to function as a dealer in arms on account of the fact that his licence has not been renewed.

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner had already filed applications for renewal which were pending before the authorities specifically the documents at pages 26, 29 and 31 of the petition, but instead of taking any decision thereon, the impugned order has been issued.

It is further stated that the petitioner had also filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Betul on 23.10.2011 as well as before the Secretary of the Department on 11.4.2012 requesting them to decide the petitioner's representation for renewal of the licence and to permit him to work as an Arms Dealer but no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities and the matter has been kept pending thereby denying the petitioner his right to deal in arMs.2 W.P.No.10383/2012 Santosh Kumar Khaskalam versus State of M.P.& ORS.Shri S.S.Bisen, the learned Govt.

Advocate, on advance copy submits that the application filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with law.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the submission of the learned Govt.

Advocate, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the concerned authority to look into the representation of the petitioner and deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date of furnishing a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition on the concerned authority by the petitioner.

With the aforesaid direction, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of.

C.C as per rules.

( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Santosh Kumar Khaskalam vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education