Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri. B.N Singh for the Election Commission of India.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being decided without calling for the counter affidavit under the rules of the Court.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-authorities are compelling the petitioner to deposit fire arms during the Assembly Elections, 2017.
4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no order has been passed by the respondents but by verbal orders the petitioner is being compelled to deposit the fire arms which is in teeth of the decision rendered by this Court in Harihar Singh v. State of U.P (Writ Petition No. 17436 of 2014) decided on 2 April 2014. In para 11 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner has never misused his fire arm against the norms of conditions of arm license.
5. Model Code of Conduct has been imposed in the State of U.P by the Election Commission of India for the Assembly Election, 2017 and all the District Magistrates/District Election Officers and Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police have been directed that pursuant to the forthcoming assembly election the arms licence should be objectively reviewed as per the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 and Code of Criminal Procedure in light of the observations made by this Court in Uma Kant Yadav v. State of U.P [2007 (3) ADJ 434] which is as follows:
“Maintenance of law and order during elections is of paramount importance. It is always open for State instrumentalities after complying with the provisions of the Act or of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law, as the case may be, to proceed against an individual in an objective manner, if they are of the view that there are materials to direct for deposit of fire-arms.”
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition be disposed of in terms of the decisions rendered in Harihar Singh's case.
7. The Court in Harihar Singh's case held as follows:
“11. Maintenance of law and order during elections is of paramount importance. It is always open for State instrumentalities after complying with the provisions of the Act or of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law, as the case may be, to proceed against an individual in an objective manner, if they are of the view that there are materials to direct for deposit of fire-arms.
12. Thus, all petitions are disposed of with the following directions.
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.
2. The Director General, U.P Police, Lucknow shall forthwith issue instructions to all Senior Supdt. of Police/Supdt. of Police of the districts concerned to ensure that the aforesaid mandamus is complied with.”
8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the directions rendered in Harihar Singh's (supra).
9. There shall be no order as to cost.