SARIKA GANDHI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C. — WPMS/1533/2026
Case under Under Article 226 of the Constituion of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED on 29th May 2026.
CNR: UKHC010088272026
Filing Number
WPMS/4605/2026
Filing Date
22-May-2026
Registration No
WPMS/1533/2026
Registration Date
22-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Purohit
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
MISC WRIT PETITION ( 2 )
Sub-Category
MISC MATTERS ( 47 )
Judicial Branch
ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)
Decision Date
29-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED
Last updated 30-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SARIKA GANDHI
Adv. C K SHARMA,NITIN TEWARI,NITIN TEWARI, ,NITIN TEWARI
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Advocate - C.S.C.
-
2.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE UDHAM SINGH NAGAR
Adv. C.S.C.
-
3.SSP UDHAM SINGH NAGAR
Adv. C.S.C.
-
4.STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Adv. C.S.C.
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
29-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj PurohitView PDF
Case Summary: WPMS/1533/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed Sarika Gandhi's writ petition seeking an arms license as the legal heir of her deceased husband's valid arms license. The court directed the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, to decide her application dated 24.01.2024 within two months in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016, finding that the respondents had failed to comply with Rule 17 despite completion of all formalities. The State did not oppose the petitioner's reasonable request for a time-bound decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
26-May-2026
Fresh Cases As Defective -236
Registrar (Judicial)
-
22-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WPMS/1533/2026
Case Summary: WPMS/1533/2026 The High Court of Uttarakhand allowed Sarika Gandhi's writ petition seeking an arms license as the legal heir of her deceased husband's valid arms license. The court directed the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, to decide her application dated 24.01.2024 within two months in accordance with the Arms Act, 1959 and Arms Rules, 2016, finding that the respondents had failed to comply with Rule 17 despite completion of all formalities. The State did not oppose the petitioner's reasonable request for a time-bound decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts