Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Since the matter is one of urgency and no disputed facts are required to be considered, the present petition is being decided with the consent of the parties at the admission stage itself, without the exchange of counter or rejoinder affidavits.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is being compelled to deposit his fire arms due to ensuing Parliamentary Elections. He further submitted that the action of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the arms licence is issued under the Arms Act and there exists a provision for the revocation, suspension, cancellation and for the deposit of the fire arms. Action, if any, for the deposit of the fire arms is required, it is to be taken under the Arms Act. The District Magistrate or any other authority could not seek the deposit of the fire arms without initiating action under the Arms Act. He further submitted that under Section 21 of the Arms Act, 1959 a fire arms could be deposited under certain conditions mentioned therein. Even under Section 144 Cr.P.C, the competent authority has to apply his mind and exercise its discretion before issuing an order of restraint. Such powers, under the Arms Act or under any statutory provision is required to be exercised by a competent authority and such power can not be delegated to Police Officer. It was further submitted that power, if any, is to proceed against an individual licensee on a case-to-case basis either under the Act or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the Cases of Mohd. Arif Khan v. District Magistrate, 1994 (12) L.C.D 193, Uma Kant Yadav v. State of U.P, 2007 (3) ADJ 434 and that of Harihar Singh v. State of U.P passed in Writ Petition No. 17436 of 2014.
The controversy involved in the present case is fully covered by the judgments rendered in the aforementioned cases.
Consequently, the present writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the judgments rendered in the cases indicated herein above with the direction upon the respondents not to compel the petitioner/arms licensee to deposit his fire arms, unless his case has been objectively reviewed/assessed by a competent authority in writing and after complying with the provisions of law.