Disposed

Anil Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2022WRIC/531/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposed of the writ petition by relying on a prior precedent, directing authorities not to forcibly compel deposit of firearms without an objective written review by a competent authority in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Not to compel petitioners to deposit firearms unless their cases are objectively reviewed by a competent authority in writing and complaint is found adverse.

Anil Kumar Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 531 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel for State-respondents through video conferencing.

¶6

Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to compel to the the petitioners forcibly to deposit their fire arms in the police stations without any reason and justification and order of competent authority."

¶8

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in view of pronouncement of U.P. Assembly Election 2022, Police authorities are pressing the petitioners to deposit their arm licenses. It is next submitted that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014 (Harihar Singh & 6 others vs. State of U.P. & 2 others) alongwith connected writ petitions decided on 02.04.2014 and in the case of Uma Kant Yadav reported in 2007 (III) ADJ 434 . Those petitions were disposed of with direction to respondentauthorities not to compel the petitioners/arms licensees to deposit their fire-arm license, unless their cases have been objectively reviewed/examined by a competent authority in writing. Therefore, under such facts of the case, licenses of petitioners may not be deposited.

¶9

Learned standing counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, but could not dispute the legal pronouncements made by the Court.

¶10

I have considered rival submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.

¶11

Relevant paragraph No. 12(1) of the judgment passed in Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014 is being quoted below:-

¶12

"12.1. 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

¶13

provisions of law."

¶14

Therefore, under such facts of the case, present petition is also disposed of in terms of order dated 02.04.2014 passed in WritC No. 17436 of 2014 .

¶15

Liberty is given to the respondent-authorities to examine the case of petitioners on individual basis by a competent authority strictly in accordance with law. If something is found adverse, petitioners shall be informed in writing about the same and further petitioners shall be directed to deposit the arm license.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.1.2022 Junaid

¶17

Digitally signed by NEERAJ TEWARI Date: 2022.01.18 15:03:51 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Yadav and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sohan Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jagdish Singh Vs Tehsildar, Tehsil - Dhanghata District - Sant Kabir Nagar and 3 Others

Smt. Noorjahan Vs Prescribed Authority Sub Divisional Officer and 14 Others

Krishna Murari Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ramashankar Singh And Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others