Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All] Ravindra Kumar Singh and others V. State of U.P. and others 11this Court rendered in the case of Mohd.Arif Khan Vs. District Magistrate andothers, reported in 1994 LCD (Vol.12),page 93, wherein the Division Bench ofthis Court had quashed the circular dated16.7.1993 issued by the ElectionCommission requiring the firearm licenseholders to deposit all their firearms withthe District Administration during theperiod of one week from the day after thelast date for withdrawal of candidaturesand the fire arm would remain depositedtill the declaration of the result and noperson shall be allowed to carry his ownpersonal fire arms. The relevantparagraphs 7, 21 and 22 are reproducedbelow:"7. We have heard the learnedcounsel for the petitioners and learnedChief Standing Counsel on behalf of theopposite parties nos. 1 to 5 and 7 in WritPetition No. 4782 (MB) of 1993 and Dr.Ashok Nigam, Senior Standing Counsel,Central Government on behalf of theChief Election Commissioner, oppositeparty no.6. After hearing the learnedcounsel for the parties and perusing therecord, we passed the following order intheir presence:-"We have heard the learned counselfor the parties at length.We are satisfied that the impugnedorder dated 18.10.1993 passed by theDistrict Magistrate, Lucknow containedin Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition andAnnexure-A-4 to the counter-affidavit ofopposite party no.1 are liable to bequashed. Therefore, for reasons to follow,we allow the writ petition and quash theaforesaid impugned order subject,however, to the observation that it will beopen to the opposite party no.1 to passsuch order afresh in his discretion inaccordance with law as may beconsidered by him appropriate andwarranted by the circumstances."21. We have no doubt in our mindthat the democracy being the basicfeature of our Constitution, it must beensured that free, fair and peacefulelections are held and for that purposethe Constitutional authorities as well asother authorities must have the fullestscope for taking appropriate action inexercise of their powers according totheir discretion under the Constitutionand the existing laws. We have, therefore,made it clear that even after the quashingof the impugned order dated October 18,1993 it will be open to the DistrictMagistrate to take such action inaccordance with law, whether underSection 144 CrPC or otherwise, as heconsiders necessary and appropriate inhis discretion in the circumstances of thecase.22. It is for these reasons that wehave passed the order indicated earlierallowing the writ petitions and quashingthe impugned order dated October 18,1993 and leaving it open to the DistrictMagistrate to take appropriate actionaccording to law in future."10. He also relied on the case ofShahabuddin Vs. State of U.P. andothers, reported in 1999 (17) LCD, page1171, wherein this Court had issueddirections that the citizens who have validfirearm licenses including the petitionersshall not be compelled to deposit theirfirearms in general merely on the basisthat Lok Sabha election is to be held innear future. The relevant paras 23 and 24