JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Learned Standing Counsel has produced the copy of the Government Order dated 29.12.2011, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Manish Mathur, learned counsel appearing for Election Commission. With the consent of parties’ counsels the case has been heard finally at the admission stage. This is a bunch of writ petitions involving the same legal question and similar facts, therefore, they are being heard together and are decided by a common order. By earlier order this Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions in the matter. 3. Mr. Sanjay Sareen, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that on the basis of directions issued by the Election Commission of India, the Government Order dated December 29, 2011 has been issued wherein it has been provided that general orders for deposit of fire-arms is not necessary. On declaration of elections the District Magistrate of the concerned districts would review the activities/antecedents of the license holders of fire-arms so that free, fair and independent elections are held and only those licensee would be required to deposit their fire-arms, who have been identified. The license of only those persons would be deposited from whom there is a danger of violence in the elections. It is the clear stand of the State that no general orders have been issued for deposit of fire-arms by the public during elections. 4. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that inspite of the fact that there is no specific circular/order/directions for deposit of fire-arms, the police of the concerned police station are compelling the petitioners to deposit their firearms in the police station or with the fire-arm dealers. 5. In support of his submissions, he relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd. 5. In support of his submissions, he relied on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Arif Khan v. District Magistrate and others, 1994 (12) LCD 93, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had quashed the circular dated 16.7.1993 issued by the Election Commission requiring the fire-arm license holders to deposit all their fire-arms with the District Administration during the period of one week from the day after the last date for withdrawal of candidatures and the fire-arm would remain deposited till the declaration of the result and no person shall be allowed to carry his own personal fire-arms. The relevant paragraphs 7, 21 and 22 are reproduced below: “7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 in Writ Petition No. 4782 (MB) of 1993 and Dr. Ashok Nigam, Senior Standing Counsel, Central Government on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner, opposite party No. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we passed the following order in their presence : “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We are satisfied that the impugned order dated 18.10.1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow contained in Annexure 3 to the writ petition and Annexure-A-4 to the counter-affidavit of opposite party No. 1 are liable to be quashed. Therefore, for reasons to follow, we allow the writ petition and quash the aforesaid impugned order subject, however, to the observation that it will be open to the opposite party No. 1 to pass such order afresh in his discretion in accordance with law as may be considered by him appropriate and warranted by the circumstances.” 21. We have no doubt in our mind that the democracy being the basic feature of our Constitution, it must be ensured that free, fair and peaceful elections are held and for that purpose the Constitutional authorities as well as other authorities must have the fullest scope for taking appropriate action in exercise of their powers according to their discretion under the Constitution and the existing laws. We have, therefore, made it clear that even after the quashing of the impugned order dated October 18, 1993 it will be open to the District Magistrate to take such action in accordance with law, whether under Section 144 CrPC or otherwise, as he considers necessary and appropriate in his discretion in the circumstances of the case. 22. It is for these reasons that we have passed the order indicated earlier allowing the writ petitions and quashing the impugned order dated October 18, 1993 and leaving it open to the District Magistrate to take appropriate action according to law in future.” 6. He also relied on the case of Shahabuddin v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (17) LCD 1171, wherein this Court had issued directions that the citizens who have valid fire-arm licenses including the petitioners shall not be compelled to deposit their firearms in general merely on the basis that Lok Sabha election is to be held in near future. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below: “23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (1) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State of U.P. is issued directing that the citizens who have valid fire-arm licenses including the petitioners may not be compelled to deposit their fire-arms in general merely on the basis that Lok Sabha Election is to be held in near future. (2) It is also directed that no District Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or any officer subordinate to them shall compel the citizen in general to deposit their fire-arm unless thee is an order of the Central Government as indicated in the body of the judgment. (3) The decision made in the case of Mohd. Arif Khan v. District Magistrate (Supra) by the Division Bench of this Court shall be followed by the State Government and its officers posted in the districts within the State of U.P. 24. However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibitory orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of Arms Act or Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 after application of mind in accordance with law.” 7. I have considered the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibitory orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of Arms Act or Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 after application of mind in accordance with law.” 7. I have considered the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Since the learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that there is no specific direction/order/ circular/notification issued by the Election Commission as well as by the State Government that all the licensee of fire-arms are required to deposit their fire arms during Vidhan Sabha Elections and the Government Order dated December 29, 2011 only provides that the District Magistrate of the concerned District would review the activities/antecedents of the licensee and identify the persons from whom there is a threat to law and order situation during elections and only those persons would be required to deposit the fire-arms, who are required individually to do so and there is no general order for deposit of fire arms during Vidhan Sabha Elections this Court is of the considered opinion that the opposite parties cannot compel the valid license holders of fire-arms to deposit their arms in the concerned police station or with the fire-arm dealers during the Vidhan Sabha Elections, which are scheduled to be held in near future without there being a written order by the competent authority. 8. In this view of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed with the direction that in case the petitioners possess valid license for their fire-arms and no written orders have been issued by the competent authority to deposit their fire-arms, the opposite parties shall not compel the petitioners to deposit their firearms during incoming Vidhan Sabha Elections. The State of U.P. is directed that the citizens, who have valid fire-arm licenses shall not be compelled to deposit their arms in general merely on the basis of incoming Vidhan Sabha Elections. However, it will be open for the concerning District Magistrates to take such action in accordance with law whether under Section 144 Cr.P.C. or otherwise or as they consider necessary and appropriate in their discretion in the circumstances of individual case. ——————