RAM KISHON RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these five amalogous writ petitions the points for our determination is as to whether the impugned orders passed by respective district Magistrates Zila/nirvachan Padadhikari in this State, even though purporting to have been passed in compliance with the Orders and Directions of the Chief Election Commissioner (Respondent No. 1 in the first writ petition) , but in fact in utter disregard of the same for impounding and deposit of the fire arms, can be sustained These analogous writ petitions would be referred as the first, second, third (and so on) etc. and would be disposed of by a common judgment The relief sought for in these writ petitions is for quashing the impugned orders by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) The factual matrix of the first writ petition is that Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, an Advocate of this Court, has filed this writ petition undef article 226 of the Constitution as Public Interest Litigation (for short P I L) seeking the relief to issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the general orders (Annexure 1) published in the daily news-papers, issued by the District magistrate/zila Nirvachan Padadhikari Vaishali at Hajipur Banka etc. by which all the fire-arms of the licence holders have been directed to be deposited with the nearest Police Station or the dealers of the fire-arms by the 2nd of February, 1995 in view of the General Election for Assembly in March, 1995, and also to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to take coercive measures and to return the fire-arms.

(3.) In the second writ petition the prayer is that as the fire-arms of the petitioner has been deposited in view of the orders of the District magistrate/zila Nirvachan Padadhikari, hence adequate security arrangement may be made to his person and property. In the remaining three writ petitions on similar farets, similar reliefs have been sought for issuance of a writ of certiorari and mandamus.