Disposed

Mohd. Ashfaq v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home and Others

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2022/477/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a mandate prohibiting him from depositing his licensed firearm due to upcoming elections. The court directed the District Magistrate to form a Scrutiny Committee as per EC norms to recommend firearm deposits and allowed the petitioner to challenge the notice, if issued. Petition disposed of with direction.

What did the court decide?

District Magistrate directed to constitute a Scrutiny Committee to recommend firearm deposits; petitioner allowed to challenge the notice via appropriate proceedings.

Mohd. Ashfaq Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 8

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 477 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Ashfaq

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of Home And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Singh,Anupesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Vijay Vikram Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Notice on behalf of the State has been accepted by Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel whereas notice on behalf of Election Commission has been accepted by Mr.Vijay Vikram Singh, Advocate.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed seeking inter alia a direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to compel the petitioner to deposit his licensee Fire Arm in view of the ensuring Vidhan Sabha Election, 2022 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has valid arm license for his firearm.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any written order, the concerned police station has directed the petitioner through telephone to deposit his firearm after issuance of notification of State Assembly Election on 08.01.2022.

¶9

Mr.Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for Election Commission, however, submits that Election Commission had issued a notification on 01.09.2009 for taking preventive measures to ensure free and fair election. He submits that in the aforesaid notification, it has been provided that after notification for election, one Screening Committee should be formed by the district administration and, on the basis of recommendation of the screening committee, persons having firearm should be issued notices for depositing their firearms.

¶10

I have considered the submissions advance on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Sanjay Mishra, learned A.C.S.C. and Mr.Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel appearing for Election Commission.

¶11

District Magistrate, Bahraich is directed to constitute a Scrutiny Committee as provided in the Election Commission Notification dated 01.09.2009 and on the basis of recommendation of the Screening Committee, people should be asked to deposit their firearms to ensure fair and free election. In case, such a notice is issued to the petitioner and, if he feels, he is not required to deposit firearm license, he can challenge such a action by instituting appropriate proceedings.

¶12

With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. )

¶14

Order Date :- 28.1.2022 prateek

Mohd. Ashfaq v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ashfaq v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko.and Ors.

State of U.P. and Another Vs Gaya Dutta and Others

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate,Amethi and 2 Others

Azizuddin Khan (in Wric 28210 of 2019) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko and Ors.

Ravindra Pratap Singh and Others (Writ-B 2530 of 1987) Vs Deputy Deirector of Consolidation and Others

Shahzad Ali and Ors. Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Ors.