High Court ordered that petitioners not deposit firearms unless an individual case is reviewed in writing by a competent authority, following previous precedents.
Direction to State authorities not to insist on deposit of fire arm license unless individual case is reviewed in writing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 72
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 700 of 2022
Petitioner :- Ramashankar Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel for State-respondents through video conferencing.
Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"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."
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.
Learned standing counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners, but could not dispute the legal pronouncements made by the Court.
I have considered rival submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the records as well as judgments cited above.
Relevant paragraph No. 12(1) of the judgment passed in Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014 is being quoted below:-
"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 provisions of law."
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 .
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.
Order Date :- 18.1.2022 Sartaj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ TEWARI Date: 2022.01.18 14:57:19 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ can be issued to prevent liability of depositing firearms by political party candidates before U.P. Assembly elections.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Uma Kant YadavReferred¶8
Uma Kant Yadav reported in 2007 (III) ADJ 434
Harihar Singh & 6 others vs. State of U.P. & 2 othersFollowed¶9
Writ-C No. 17436 of 2014 (Harihar Singh & 6 others vs. State of U.P. & 2 others)
Ramashankar Singh
Another
State Of U.P.
4 Others
Neeraj Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
