VIRENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Singh, J. The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus lo command the opposite parties for not compelling the petitioner to deposal his arm which is S. B. B. L. gunof. 12-bore.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that on account of Lok Sabha Election, which has yet not been notified, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have snarled the proc s of gelling the arm, held by the petitioner on a valid licence, deposited. The petitioner's licence is valid up to 31-12-1998. The arm licence has not been can celled or the petitioner's licence has been suspended. The petitioner's father is an Ex.- M. L. A. from Hasanganj reserved as sembly constituency. There is not criminal history of the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that the opposite parties cannot compel a valid licensee to deposal his arm which has been granted for protection of the person and property of the licensee. The learned Counsel has finally sublimed that in relation lo identical cases the Court has taken a view that until the licence is suspended or cancelled the opposite parties cannot compel the licensee lo deposit the arm simply because election Lok Sabha has been announced.