PANDHARI YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With ensuing general parliamentary election 2004 in the offing pursuant to notification issued by the election commission, this Court has been inundated with petitions by licensed fire-arm holders who seemingly panic-stricken by general orders seeking deposit of firearms have rushed to this Court for relief. "The basis' of all these petitions either appears to be news item clippings issued by the district administration or in some cases, arms-twisting being indulged in by the police, A further search for basis of orders for depositing of fire-arms revealed that the district administration has been galvanized into action pursuant to Election Commission's order dated March 1996 in its attempt to ensure free and fair election.

(2.) In almost all the petitions barring few, this Court granted time to the Standing counsel to seek instructions. When the matter was taken up on 12.4.2004, learned Standing counsel stated across the bar that in most districts excepting few, steps have been initiated to seek deposit of licensed fire-arms on the basis of Election "Commission's Order dated March 1996 aforestated. He further stated across the bar that from few districts like Basti instructions have been received to the effect that no general or specific orders have been passed for seeking deposit of licensed fire-arms and petitioners have scrambled to the Court on mere apprehension. For the basis of orders passed or being passed by the District Administrations, the learned Standing counsel produced before the Court the order of the Election Commission dated 11th March 1996 which according to him, applied on all fours in the matter of restriction on possession of Arms during election. In vindication of the directives being issued by the Various district administrations, the learned Counsel drew attention of the Court to growing menace of disruptive forces obtaining in every nook and corner of the Country particularly, the menace posed by Nexalites, the terrorists and other disruptive forces. He also alluded to peril of Maowadi forces in and around the area adjoining Nepal border and referred to instances of Nexalites movement in areas abutting Bihar borders. The learned Standing counsel also stressed that for free and fair election, the measures being taken by the. District administrations are essential and law and order situation is at a premium. The learned Standing counsel also emphasized that the directives as contained in Election Commission's order March 11,1996 are sanctified by Article 324 of the Const and nave to be respected by the State.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners conjoined to urge that petitioners in their respective cases are valid licence holders and they cannot be compelled to part with their fire-arms unless their licences are suspended or cancelled or revoked. It was further urged that no orders have been passed either for suspending their arms licence or for cancellation or revocation of their licence. It was further urged that even no notices have been issued by any licensing authority to deposit the Arms Licence. The earned Counsel made a legal proposition that petitioners in all cases were sanctioned licence under the Arms Act which is a Parliamentary Act and neither Election Commission nor District Administration can act in breach of the mandate of parliament while enacting the Arms Act. It was also urged across the bar that in some cases, arms licences were sanctioned considering immediacy of danger to the life and property of the individual inasmuch as in some cases, family members having been assaulted and murdered, the living members were sanctioned licence for a hedge against further misdemeanour by the culprits and in case, proceeds the submission, the licence holders are compelled to deposit their fire-arms, imminent danger to their life and limb would stare stark in their faces. In some writ petitions, argument was made assailing the arbitrary action of the district administrations in the garb of directives of the election commission. Ultimately, it was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no review or objective assessment by any authority of individual cases and general orders issued in some districts are in blatant antagonism of the directives of the Election Commission.