Allahabad High Court
Tarun Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 9 October, 2015
Bench: Suneet Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 57797 of 2015
Petitioner :- Tarun Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On the consent of the parties, the petition is being disposed of without calling for the counter affidavit under the Rules of the Court.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-authorities are compelling the petitioner to deposit fire arms during the Panchayat Elections 2015.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order has been passed by the respondents but by verbal orders the petitioner is being compelled to deposit the fire arms which is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in Harihar Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 17436 of 2014) decided on 2 April 2014.
The State Election Commissioner vide circular dated 28 August 2015 addressed to the District Magistrates/District Election Officers and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police has directed that pursuant to the elections of the Panchayats the arms licence should be objectively reviewed as per the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and Code of Criminal Procedure in light of the observations made by this Court in Uma Kant Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others [2007 (3) ADJ 434] which is as follows:
"Maintenance of law and order during elections is of paramount importance. It is always open for State instrumentalities after complying with the provisions of the Act or of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law, as the case may be, to proceed against an individual in an objective manner, if they are of the view that there are materials to direct for deposit of fire-arms."
Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petition be disposed of in terms of the decisions rendered in Harihar Singh's case.
The Court in Harihar Singh's case held as follows:
11. Maintenance of law and order during elections is of paramount importance. It is always open for State instrumentalities after complying with the provisions of the Act or of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law, as the case may be, to proceed against an individual in an objective manner, if they are of the view that there are materials to direct for deposit of fire-arms.
12. Thus, all petitions are disposed of with the following directions.
1. A mandamus is issued to the respondents not to compel the petitioners / arms licensees to deposit their fire-arms, unless their case/cases has / have been objectively (emphasis is mine) reviewed/assessed by a competent authority in writing and after complying with the provisions of law.
2. The Director General, U.P. Police, Lucknow shall forthwith issue instructions to all Senior Supdt. of Police/Supdt. of Police of the districts concerned to ensure that the aforesaid mandamus is complied with.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the directions rendered in Harihar Singh's (supra).
No cost.
Order Date :- 9.10.2015
Mukesh Kr.
