Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel through video conferencing.
The present writ petition has been filed to issue a direction to opposite parties not to compel the petitioners to deposit their valid firearms in general on the basis of the ensuing elections.
Similar controversy was involved in the Writ Petition no. 8873 (M.S.) of 2021, Mohd. Shuaib and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. In this regard, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.03.2021 passed in the said writ petition has decided the controversy as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of opposite parties nos. 1, 3 to 5 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Kaushlendra Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.2 - Election Commission of India.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to compel the petitioners to deposit their fire arm license in implementation of Election Code of Conduct relating to Gram Panchayat Elections, 2021 by the State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh for the forthcoming elections.
The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Government Order dated 13.02.2021 wherein directions have been issued to ensure that a review is made of the fire arm licenses issued to the persons in order to ensure that the licenses are not misused. Certain directions have been issued, however, it is stated that these directions are not omnibus and it has to be considered on case to case basis in light of the guidelines issued under the said Government Order.
The learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand submits that a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others in W.P. No. 8602 of 2019 had the occasion to consider a similar issue and the aforesaid petitions were disposed of with the direction that in case if a person possessed a valid arms license for his fire arm and there are no written orders issued by the Competent Authority against him then he may not be compelled to deposit his fire arm.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid order passed in the case of Anil Kumar Pandey, (Supra) reads as under:-
"8. 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."
9. 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."
Considering the facts and circumstances as well as there is no written orders regarding deposit of fire arms and the petitioners have stated that they do not bear any criminal history nor they have ever been prosecuted or tried in any case.
Be that as it may, in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Pandey (supra) this Court directs that in case the petitioner possesses a valid fire arms license in respect of their fire arms and there are no written orders issued by the competent authority against them in respect of depositing the fire arm, then the petitioners may not be compelled to deposit the fire arm, however, it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law on case to case basis in light of the Government Order dated 13.02.2021 in case if they feel that the continuance of the fire arm shall be detrimental to public peace or law or order.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of."
Considering the fact that the identical issue has been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8873 (MS) of 2021, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition also in terms of the aforesaid order.
The present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court.
Order Date :- 15.4.2021 Mustaqeem