Arun Kumar Singh & Ors. vs State Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3429 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 6860 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh & Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home,Lucknow & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

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. 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).

While deciding the writ petition, the Court is constrained to observe that despite the controversy of deposit of fire arms during the election period having been settled beyond doubt by this Court in various judgments yet whenever the elections are announced, the fire arms owners are compelled to approach this Court praying for the same orders from the writ Court which have been passed earlier i.e of they being not compelled to deposit their fire arms merely because elections have been announced. Thus, apart from wastage of precious judicial time, the fire arms owners are also made to litigate for impugning such an action which should have been seen at the level of the State Government itself whereby avoiding the wastage of precious judicial time. In this regard, almost two and half decades earlier this Court in the case of Mohd. Arif Khan Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow reported in 1994 (12) LCD 93 and in the year 1999 in the case of Shahabuddin Vs. State of U.P and Ors reported in 2000 (40) ACC 839 had issued following directions which for the sake of convenience are being reproduced below:-

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 arms unless there 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 Vs. District Magistrate (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court shall be followed by the State Government and its officer posted in the district within the State of U.P.

Despite the aforesaid specific mandamus having been issued by this Court repeatedly yet what the Court finds is that whenever the elections are announced, the writ Courts get deluged with similar petitions praying for similar reliefs. It is thus apparent that the State Government and its officials are literally deaf to the specific mandamus having been issued by the writ Court in this regard decades earlier. Accordingly, while disposing of the present petition it is observed that in case, cases of such nature continue to come before this Court then the Court may be constrained to saddle the State Government with exemplary costs apart from summoning the officials responsible for not adhering to the earlier orders passed by the writ Court.

As an abundant precaution, it is provided that in individual cases where the Government feels that a person is required to deposit his fire arms license then an individual notice shall be issued to the person concerned requiring him to deposit his fire arms which would be without prejudice to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court.

Let the copy of this order be sent to the office of the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow within ten days for the purpose of issuance of appropriate directions to all the subordinate authorities for adhering to the judgment of this Court pertaining to the issue of deposit of fire arms during the election period.

Order Date :- 15.3.2021

Pachhere/-