Allahabad High Court
Diwaker Desh Bandhu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 18 March, 2021
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7630 of 2021
Petitioner :- Diwaker Desh Bandhu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Lko.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Prasad Dwivedi,Ruby Maurya
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushlendra Yadav,Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
Heard, Shri Ram Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agnihotri, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties no.1 to 3, Shri Kaushlendra Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 and Ms. Shreya Chaudhary, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party no.5.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is being compelled to deposit the fire arm without any written order. There is consensus in the learned counsel for the parties that this case is covered by judgment and order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.8087 (M/S) of 2019; Dileep Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The order dated 15.03.2019 is extracted below:-of 2019; Dileep Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The order dated 15.03.2019 is extracted below:-
"(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondent No.1, 3 and 4 and to Sri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
(2) Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that without any order in writing, the police officials of the concerned Police Station have approached to the petitioner and directed to deposit the fire arms, for which, the petitioners have got the valid license issued by the competent authority and the period of the license is still continuing.
(3) He further submitted that the police officials of the concerned Police Station have directed the petitioners to deposit the fire arms on account of certain orders passed by the respondent No.3 in pursuance to the directions issued by the Election Commission of India.
(4) On the basis of instruction received, learned Standing counsel submitted that the Election Commission of India with expectation that the arms holder should deposit his fire arms in spite of having valid fire arms license to maintain law and order for peaceful holding of the election.
(5) In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance towards certain judgment and orders passed by this Court.
(6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and the law report relied upon.
(7) In Writ Petition No.241 (M/S) of 2002, this Court while deciding the writ petition, vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2002, made following observation:-
"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."
(8) Further, this Court in the case of Tula Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.1487 (M/S) of 2007 along with other connected matters on 29.03.2007 in the identical matter has passed the following 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."
(9) Considering the order of the respondent No.3 issued under the direction of the Election Commission of India and observation made in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.
(10) Thus, on the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioners possess valid arms license for their fire arms and no written order has been issued by the competent authority against them with the direction to deposit the arms, the petitioners will not be compelled to deposit their fire arms.
(11) However, it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law on case to case basis, in case, if they feel that continuance of the fire arms with the petitioners shall be detrimental to public peace or law and order."
In view of above and consensus of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 15.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.8087 (M/S) of 2019.
.............................................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.)
Order Date :- 18.3.2021
Haseen U.
