BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 01.02.2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.3- District Magistrate, vide which direction has been issued to deposit the licensed weapons issued for self-protection without complying the order dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure P-9) of this Court.

(2.) Mr. H.N.S.Gill, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that earlier, petitioners had approached this Court vide CWP No.1173 of 2017 and this Court, vide order dated 31.01.2017, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to decide the case of the petitioners as per the representations, Annexure P-4 and P-5, whereby, there was a reference to the instructions (Annexure P-8), wherein, it has been held that as and when the elections, General Elections/Bye-elections, are held in any of the State, the Election Commission of India had issued instructions dated 08.01.2007 and 01.09.2009 as has been referred to by Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 that the Commission for reviewing of the detailed assessment of the license holders categorized in paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11 of the instructions dated 01.09.2009, for the purpose of review and assessment of all licence holders, Screening Committee is directed to be constituted in every District and in every Commissionerate area which consist of the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police and also Commissioner of Police (Admn.) and Joint/Additional Commissioner of Police (Admn.), which shall commence the work of screening from the date of announcement of election by the Election Commission and the cases of all licence holders as mentioned in para 3.10 shall be placed before the Screening Committee. The sportsperson, who are the members of the National Rifle Association, have been exempted. The District Magistrate had not simply passed the order by taking into consideration the instructions and simply relied upon report of SSP, therefore, there has not been any regard to the orders, particularly the factum of instructions which had been specifically indicated in the representations (Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5).

(3.) Mr. Yatinder Sharma, learned State Counsel has filed a reply in the Court which is taken on record. He relies upon the vernacular copy of Annexure R-3/1 regarding deposit of 100% weapons, whereby, the Commissioner has also surrendered the licensed weapon to the Deputy Commissioner, in view of the General Elections. He further submits that the instructions apply to all the license holders and therefore, it was not a case of exemption. The elections are now over and the licensed weapons would be released within one month.