Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Kumar Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. Department ... on 24 January, 2012
Author: Ritu Raj Awasthi
Bench: Ritu Raj Awasthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH AFR Court No. - 5 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 84 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Singh And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thro Secy. Department Of Home And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Vinay P.Singh Rathore Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,N.C.Mehrotra,O.P. Srivastava. With 1. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 91 of 2012 Petitioner :- Lal Ambkeshwar Pratap Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Home Department & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Abhishek Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 2. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 92 of 2012 Petitioner :- Laxmi Narayan Sharma Respondent :- District Magistrate Faizabad And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Praveen Tripathi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh 3. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 93 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sangam Lal Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home Civil Sectt. And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Janardan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag K. Singh 4. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 97 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Yadav And Ors. Respondent :- District Magistrate/ District Election Officer And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Karunakar Srivastava Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P. Srivastava 5. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 108 of 2012 Petitioner :- Indrajeet Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through It'S Principal Secy. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 6. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 120 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ram Nath Dwivedi, Advocate And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home Civil Sectt. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag K. Singh 7. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 123 of 2012 Petitioner :- Dr. Mamta Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home Department And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh 8. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 128 of 2012 Petitioner :- Rakesh Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home Department And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.N. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag K. Singh 9. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 129 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ram Dev Shukla And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home Department And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.N. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag K. Singh 10. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 148 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mohd. Nauman Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Sect. Home Department And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Girdhari Lal Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag K. Singh 11. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 166 of 2012 Petitioner :- Jagat Narain Sharma And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Department Of Home And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Vidya Knat Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P. Srivastava 12. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 168 of 2012 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate Gonda And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- R.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P.Srivastava 13. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 174 of 2012 Petitioner :- Rawat Surendra Bahadur Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home Civil Sectt. And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag K. Singh,O.P.Srivastava 14. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 177 of 2012 Petitioner :- Abdul Khaliq And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur,O.P.Srivastava 15. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 179 of 2012 Petitioner :- Indrawati Singh And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur,O.P.Srivastava 16. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 181 of 2012 Petitioner :- Kesh Nath Pandey And Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur,O.P.Srivastava 17. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 182 of 2012 Petitioner :- Janardan Prasad Tiwari & Anr Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat U.P. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur,O.P.Srivastava 18. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 183 of 2012 Petitioner :- Rananjay Singh And Another Respondent :- District Magistrate Sultanpur And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Niranjan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P.Srivastava 19. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 184 of 2012 Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Dubey & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat U.P. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur,O.P.Srivastava 20. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 185 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secretariat U.P. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur,O.P.Srivastava 21. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 186 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh Respondent :- District Magistrate Sultanpur And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Niranjan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P.Srivastava 22. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 187 of 2012 Petitioner :- Dhananjay Singh Respondent :- District Magistrate Sultanpur And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Niranjan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P.Srivastava 23. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 199 of 2012 Petitioner :- Awadh Pal Singh Respondent :- District Election Officer,District Magistrate Sitapur & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Janardan Prasad Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 24. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 201 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mahesh Pratap Singh And Ors. Respondent :- District Magistrate District Gonda And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Singh Vinod Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P. Srivastava 25. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 208 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mukhtar Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Home Secy. U.P. Civil Sectt. & Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Singh,R.K. Verma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 26. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 231 of 2012 Petitioner :- Amarjeet Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Secy. Home Department And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Tabrez Iqbal Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 27. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 244 of 2012 Petitioner :- Brijendra Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Surya Kumar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anurag Kumar Singh 28.Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 246 of 2012 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Rana Mrityunjay Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 29. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 249 of 2012 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secy. Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 30. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 267 of 2012 Petitioner :- Satish Tiwari And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Udai Bhan Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 31. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 276 of 2012 Petitioner :- Krishna Chandra Yadav And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Home Secy. U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Singh,Arun Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 32. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 282 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Ojha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- N.K. Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 33. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 283 of 2012 Petitioner :- Akbal Bahadur Tewari And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate Gonda And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Verma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,O.P. Srivastava 34. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 289 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sri Pramod Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department And Others Petitioner Counsel :- G.P. Mishra,Shiv Sharan Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 35. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 292 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Gupta And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Brijendra Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 36. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 293 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Home Secretary & Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Singh,R.K. Verma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 37. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 296 of 2012 Petitioner :- Rituraj Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Home Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Singh,R.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 38. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 297 of 2012 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Pandey And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla,Pankaj Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur. 39. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 298 of 2012 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla,Pankaj Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 40. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 301 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Pandey And Others Respondent :- Election Commission Of India New Delhi And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ravindra Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 41. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 302 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Tiwari And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Akhilesh Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 42. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 303 of 2012 Petitioner :- Basu Deo Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sharad Nandan Ojha,Abhishek Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 43. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 304 of 2012 Petitioner :- Taukeer Ahmad Respondent :- District Magistrate Rai Bareli And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Hari Kishan Verma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 44. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 310 of 2012 Petitioner :- Janardan Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Kailash Nath Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 45. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 329 of 2012 Petitioner :- Udai Pratap Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.P. Singh,Akhand Pratap Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 46. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 332 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mohd. Hashim Farooqui And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.B. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 47. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 337 of 2012 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through It'S Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Awdhesh Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 48. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 338 of 2012 Petitioner :- Janardan Pratap Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Dharmendra Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 49. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 339 of 2012 Petitioner :- Nagendra Nath And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.N. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 50. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 346 of 2012 Petitioner :- Smt. Madhumati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through District Magistrate Gonda And Others Petitioner Counsel :- H.R. Verma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 51. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 360 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ran Vijay Singh And Another Respondent :- District Magistrate District Barabanki And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ram Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 52. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 371 of 2012 Petitioner :- Jang Bahadur Sahu And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 53. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 372 of 2012 Petitioner :- Abdul Qaiyum And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 54. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 373 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ram Yagya Tripathi And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Pt.Subhash Chandra Pandey,Abhishek Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 55. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 374 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mohd. Kamar Khan And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 56. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 379 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sabhajeet Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 57. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 380 of 2012 Petitioner :- Om Kant Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Balrampur & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Sabhajeet Singh Respondent Counsel :- C S C,Manish Mathur 58. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 384 of 2012 Petitioner :- Dr. Arun Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The District Magistrate And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mohd. Babar Khan Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 59. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 391 of 2012 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary (Home) And Others Petitioner Counsel :- S.M. Royekwar Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 60. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 408 of 2012 Petitioner :- Raja Ram Upadhyay And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department And Others Petitioner Counsel :- K.N. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 61. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 410 of 2012 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Pandey Nanbachcha And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Indrajeet Shukla Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 62. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 412 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Shukla & Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P., Thru. Prin. Secy., Home & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Gauri Shanker Maurya Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 63. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 437 of 2012 Petitioner :- Satya Deo Goswami And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Gyanendra Kumar Sharma Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 64. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 439 of 2012 Petitioner :- Mohd. Jaseem And Others Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 65. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 440 of 2012 Petitioner :- Shakeel Ahmad And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur 66. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 452 of 2012 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Aditya Narayan Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,N.C. Mehrotra,O.P. Srivastava 67. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 463 of 2012 Petitioner :- Vinay Kuamr Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ravi Shanker Singh 68. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 464 of 2012 Petitioner :- Rama Shanker Tewari And Another Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- B.P. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 69. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 466 of 2012 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ravi Shanker Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 70. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 467 of 2012 Petitioner :- Thakur Prasad Yadava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.P. Misra-Ii Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 71. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 477 of 2012 Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Advocate And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Vikas Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 72. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 480 of 2012 Petitioner :- Samar Bahadur Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through The Principla Secretary And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ravi Shanker Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. 73. Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 487 of 2012 Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Home Lko.And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- S.K.Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Manish Mathur Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.
Learned Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the Government Order dated 29.12.2011, which is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Manish Mathur, learned counsel appearing for Election Commission.
With the consent of parties' counsels the case has been heard finally at the admission stage.
This is a bunch of writ petitions involving the same legal question and similar facts, therefore, they are being heard together and are decided by a common order.
By earlier order this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter.
Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that on the basis of directions issued by the Election Commission of India, the Government Order dated December 29, 2011 has been issued wherein it has been provided that general orders for deposit of firearms is not necessary. On declaration of elections the District Magistrate of the concerned districts would review the activities/antecedents of the license holders of firearms so that free, fair and independent elections are held and only those licensee would be required to deposit their firearms, who have been identified. The license of only those persons would be deposited from whom there is a danger of violence in the elections.
It is the clear stand of the State that no general orders have been issued for deposit of firearms by the public during elections.
Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that in spite of the fact that there is no specific circular/order/directions for deposit of firearms, the police of the concerned police station are compelling the petitioners to deposit their firearms in the police station or with the firearm dealers.
In support of his submissions, he relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Arif Khan Vs. District Magistrate and others, reported in 1994 LCD (Vol.12), page 93, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had quashed the circular dated 16.7.1993 issued by the Election Commission requiring the firearm license holders to deposit all their firearms with the District Administration during the period of one week from the day after the last date for withdrawal of candidatures and the fire arm would remain deposited till the declaration of the result and no person shall be allowed to carry his own personal fire arms. The relevant paragraphs 7, 21 and 22 are reproduced below:
"7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties nos. 1 to 5 and 7 in Writ Petition No. 4782 (MB) of 1993 and Dr. Ashok Nigam, Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner, opposite party no.6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we passed the following order in their presence:-
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
We are satisfied that the impugned order dated 18.10.1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition and Annexure-A-4 to the counter-affidavit of opposite party no.1 are liable to be quashed. Therefore, for reasons to follow, we allow the writ petition and quash the aforesaid impugned order subject, however, to the observation that it will be open to the opposite party no.1 to pass such order afresh in his discretion in accordance with law as may be considered by him appropriate and warranted by the circumstances."
21. We have no doubt in our mind that the democracy being the basic feature of our Constitution, it must be ensured that free, fair and peaceful elections are held and for that purpose the Constitutional authorities as well as other authorities must have the fullest scope for taking appropriate action in exercise of their powers according to their discretion under the Constitution and the existing laws. We have, therefore, made it clear that even after the quashing of the impugned order dated October 18, 1993 it will be open to the District Magistrate to take such action in accordance with law, whether under Section 144 CrPC or otherwise, as he considers necessary and appropriate in his discretion in the circumstances of the case.
22. It is for these reasons that we have passed the order indicated earlier allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned order dated October 18, 1993 and leaving it open to the District Magistrate to take appropriate action according to law in future."
He also relied on the case of Shahabuddin Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 1999 (17) LCD, page 1171, wherein this Court had issued directions that the citizens who have valid firearm licenses including the petitioners shall not be compelled to deposit their firearms in general merely on the basis that Lok Sabha election is to be held in near future. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below:
"23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:
(1) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State of U.P. is issued directing that the citizens who have valid fire arm licenses including the petitioners may not be compelled to deposit their fire arms in general merely on the basis that Lok Sabha Election is to be held in near future.
(2) It is also directed that no District Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or any officer subordinate to them shall compel the citizen in general to deposit their fire arm unless thee is an order of the Central Government as indicated in the body of the judgment.
(3) The decision made in the case of Mohd. Arif Khan v. District Magistrate (Supra) by the Division Bench of this Court shall be followed by the State Government and its officers posted in the districts within the State of U.P.
24. However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibitory orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of Arms Act or Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 after application of mind in accordance with law."
I have considered the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
Since the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that there is no specific direction/order/ circular/notification issued by the Election Commission as well as by the State Government that all the licensee of fire arms are required to deposit their fire arms during Vidhan Sabha Elections and the Government Order dated December 29, 2011 only provides that the District Magistrate of the concerned District would review the activities/antecedents of the licensee and identify the persons from whom there is a threat to law and order situation during elections and only those persons would be required to deposit the fire arms, who are required individually to do so and there is no general order for deposit of fire arms during Vidhan Sabha Elections this Court is of the considered opinion that the opposite parties can not compel the valid license holders of fire arms to deposit their arms in the concerned police station or with the firearm dealers during the Vidhan Sabha Elections, which are scheduled to be held in near future without there being a written order by the competent authority.
In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed with the direction that in case the petitioners possess valid license for their firearms and no written orders have been issued by the competent authority to deposit their firearms, the opposite parties shall not compel the petitioners to deposit their firearms during incoming Vidhan Sabha Elections.
The State of U.P. is directed that the citizens, who have valid firearm licenses shall not be compelled to deposit their arms in general merely on the basis of incoming Vidhan Sabha Elections. However, it will be open for the concerning District Magistrates to take such action in accordance with law whether under Section 144 Cr.P.C. or otherwise or as they consider necessary and appropriate in their discretion in the circumstances of individual case.
[Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 24.1.2012 Prajapati