Disposed

Sukhbir Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2024WRIC/3321/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order requiring firearm deposit for Assembly Elections. Relying on a 2019 judgment in Ziaur Rahman Alvi, the court directed that license holders cannot be compelled to deposit weapons unless specifically ordered by competent authorities or if criminal antecedents exist.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; citizens with valid licenses not compelled to deposit firearms unless specific order exists or criminal antecedents imply interference with free elections.

Sukhbir Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29100

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3321 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sukhbir Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Arti Ganguly

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijay Vikram Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned counsel for the State and Sri Vijay Vikram Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶9

Learned counsel for the parties agree that similar controversy as raised in the present petition has been disposed off by this court in terms of the order dated 30.03.2019 passed in Writ Petition Misc. Single No.8774 of 2019 (Ziaur Rahman Alvi vs State of U.P. and others) on the following terms :

¶10

"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are being disposed of with the direction:-

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

the elections as the orders have already been passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C.

¶16

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."

¶17

(11) Considering the order of the respondents issued under the direction of the Election Commission of India and observation made in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending.

¶18

(12) Thus, on the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner possess valid arms license for his fire arms and no written order has been issued by the competent authority against him with the direction to deposit the arms, the petitioner will not be compelled to deposit his fire arms.

¶19

(13) However, it shall be open for the opposite parties to proceed in accordance with law on case to case basis, in case, if they feel that continuance of the fire arms with the petitioner shall be detrimental to public peace or law and order."

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions sent in another matter informs that an order has been issued by the Election Commission vide letter no. 464/INST/EPS/2023/L & O dated 08.06.2023 and in pursuance thereto the Chief Election Officer, U.P., Lucknow has issued letter No. 466/CEO-2-04/22023 dated 09.06.2023 for the purpose of holding of free and fair elections which requires a committee headed by the District Magistrate of the concerned district and comprising of the S.P., A.D.M. and A.S.P. as its members to form a screening committee for the purpose of verification of the arms licenses and for their deposit.

¶21

Thus, the present petition is also disposed off in terms of the order above dated 30.03.2019 extracted and on the same terms and conditions.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Pradeep/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sukhbir Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhbir Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Savita Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey @ Vinnu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sonu Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Lko. and 7 Others

Pradeep Prajapati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bagish Kumar @ Bagish Kumar Shukla @ Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

M/S Arya Cine Entertainment Lucknow Thru. Proprietor Rahul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others