Allowed

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

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2022WRIC/687/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent authorities not to compel the petitioner to deposit fire arms for the 2022 elections unless an individual review reveals an adverse finding. The order is in terms of a previous judgment in Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued not to compel deposit of fire arm unless case is objectively reviewed by a competent authority.

Krishna Murari Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 687 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Krishna Murari Jaiswal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh 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 respondents not to insist the petitioners to deposit their fire arm pursuant to U.P. Assembly Election 2022 taking in view the danger to life and property of the petitioners as has earlier been held by this Court in the case of Uma Kant Yadav reported in 2007 (III) ADJ 434."

¶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 license. 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, license 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 Sartaj

¶17

Digitally signed by NEERAJ TEWARI Date: 2022.01.18 14:57:16 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Murari Jaiswal and Another 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

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

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