Allahabad High Court
Meer Mohammad & Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. D.M. Amethi & Others on 12 March, 2021
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 19 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 6369 of 2021 Petitioner :- Meer Mohammad & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. D.M. Amethi & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhanu Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushlendra Yadav Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1,3 and 4 and Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2.
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage.
There is consensus at bar that the matter in issue which pertains to deposit of the fire arms of the petitioners at police station is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1452 (MS) of 2017 Inre; Sanjay Mishra Vs. State of U.P and ors decided on 20.01.2017, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the petition. In the said order, the Court had directed after considering various judgments of this Court that in case the petitioner possesses valid arms licence for his fire arms and no written order has been issued by the competent authority against him to deposit the fire arms, the petitioner shall not be compelled to deposit his fire arms. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 20.01.2017 passed in the case of Sanjay Mishra (supra) is being reproduced as under:-
"Heard Sri Anand Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the opposite party Nos.1, 3 and 5, Shri V. K. Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2 and 4 and perused the record.
With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without any written order the police officials of the police station concerned have approached petitioner and directed to deposit the fire arms for which he has got the valid license issued by the competent authority and the period of the license is still continuing.
He further submits that the police officials of Police Station concerned have approached and directed petitioner to deposit fire arms on account of certain orders passed by the District Magistrate in pursuance to the directions issued by the Election Commission.
Learned counsel for opposite parties submits that general direction has been given by the Election Commission of India with an expectation that the arms holders should deposit their arms in spite of having valid fire arms license. The Election Commission of India had directed the State Government to maintain law and order for peaceful holding of the election.
My attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order dated 25.01.2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 241 (M/S) of 2002. The Court while deciding the said writ petition observed as under:-
"In view of the direction issued by the Election Commission of India and the law declared by this Court, it is expected form the authorities that they shall not compel any license holders for fire arms to surrender their arms if they are not involved in any criminal case. It is also clarified that the State is free to take action against the person who have released on bail, against the persons who are having criminal history and those who were earlier convicted or previously involved in rioting at the time of election."
Further, this Court in the case of Tula Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 1487 (MS) of 2007 along with other connected matters on 29.03.2007 in the identical matter has passed an order:-
"In the garb of elections, the very purpose of granting fire arms licences for self defence and personal security cannot be taken away form the bonafide licence holders of fire arms which is against the law, makes it clear that rights to self defence, personal security and protection of life is the basic criteria and these rights cannot and should not be taken away by sweepingly ordering the deposit of fire arms during the elections putting the life and security of all and sundry who holds the arm licences in imminent dangers without following the provisions of law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are being disposed of with the direction:-
i. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State Government that the citizens who have valid fire arms license including the petitioners, may not be compelled to deposit their fire arms in general merely on the basis of the ensuing Assembly Elections.
ii. It is also commanded that no District Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or any Officer subordinate to them shall compel the citizens in general to deposit their firearm unless there is an order of the Central Government as indicated hereinabvoe in the judgment.
However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibit orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of the Arms Act or under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after application of mind.
It will also not preclude the District Magistrates/SSPs/S.P.s/Incharge of the Districts to seize weapons and take action against the holders of fire arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act in case any attempt is made by any citizen to display or carry firearms at any time till the end of the elections as the orders have already been passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
It is further clarified that in case any citizen has criminal antecedents or found displaying the arms, action may be taken against them in accordance with the provisions of law. District Magistrates are also directed to pass orders after examining the individual cases for suspending the licences and ensuring the deposit of arms in cases related to persons who have criminal history or who are on bail or lacked clean antecendents as the same might involved interference in the conduct of the free and fair elections."
The controversy which is involved in the present case is squarely covered by the above said judgments, the said fact is also admitted by the learned counsel for the parties.
For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition is finally disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner possesses valid arms licence for his fire arms and no written order has been issued by the competent authority against him with the direction to deposit the arms, the petitioner shall not be compelled to deposit his arms. However, in case opposite parties feel that continuance of the fire arms with the petitioner shall be detrimental to public peace or law and order, it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law, on case to case basis."
Accordingly taking into consideration the aforesaid consensus, the present petition is disposed of in light of the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Sanjay Mishra (supra).
It is provided that the petitioner would also be entitled for the benefit of the judgment of Sanjay Mishra (supra).
Order Date :- 12.3.2021 Pachhere/-