- (1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel and Dr. Ashok Nigam, the learned Counsel for Election Commission of India. As the common question of law and facts are involved in all the above petitions, they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
(2.) THE petitioners have approached this Court mere on apprehension that the Police Authority will compel them to deposit their fire-arm during the forth coming Assembly Election in the State of U. P. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the basis of the instructions received from City Magistrate, Lucknow, has informed this Court that only those licence holders who are involved in criminal cases, who are released on bail and who were earlier convicted in criminal case will be required to deposit their fire-arm during the election period. Dr. Ashok Nigam, appearing on behalf of the Election Commission of India, placed before his Court order dated 13-3- 1996. Para-3 of the said order is as follows : "immediately after the announcement of elections, District Magistrate shall make a detailed and individual review and assessment (in accordance with the prevalent State Laws) of all licence holders so that licensed arms in those cases where they consider it essential are impounded in order to ensure maintenance of law and order so essential for ensuring free and fair elections. These arms should be deposited with the district authorities. Among cases which may need to be reviewed are the following : (1) persons released on bail, (2) persons having a history of criminal offences, and (3) persons previously involved in rioting at any time but especially during the election period. (the above categories are only illustrative and not exhaustive ).
(3.) I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. This Court earlier had considered the point which have been raised in instant petition and there are two judgments passed by this Court reported in 1994 (12) LCD 93, Mohd. Arif Khanv. District Magistrate, Lucknowand 1999 (17) LCD 1171, Shahabuddinv. State of U. P. and others. In para 23 of the Shahabuddincase following directions were issued : "considering the facts and circumstances of the case these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : (1) A writ in the nature of mandamuscommanding the State of U. P. is issued directing that the citizens who have valid fire-arm licenses including the petitioners may not be compelled to deposit their fire- arms in general merely on the basis that Lok Sabha Election to be held in near future. (2) It is also directed that no District Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or any Officer subordinate to them shall compel the citizen in general to deposit their fire-arm unless there is an order of the Central Government as indicated in the body of the judgment. (3) The decision made in the case of Mohd. Arif Khanv. District Magistrate (supra) by the Division Bench of this Court shall be followed the State Government and its officers posted in the district within the State of U. P. ";