Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1065 (MP)

Suresh Chaturvedi v. State of M. P.

2013-09-05

M.K.Mudgal, S.K.Gangele

body2013
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this PIL for a relief that the respondents No. 2 and 3 be directed to take action in accordance with Annexure P-1. The petitioner further prayed a relief that the respondent No. 2 be directed not to issue any notification in regard to suspension and deposit of arms. 2. The petitioner pleaded in this PIL that the District Magistrate used to issue orders directing the Licenced arms holders, who have been granted arms licence, to deposit the same in the concerned police station or with the valid arms dealers. The petitioner submitted that the aforesaid orders are contrary to law. 3. As per the return filed by the respondents, the Election Commission has issued certain orders in regard to holding free and fair elections. In order to maintain law and order, in accordance with the order passed by the Election Commission, District Magistrate issued an order and imposed section 144 of CrPC and also issued order to all the arms licence holders to deposit their arms at the concerned police station or at the registered arms dealers. It is in accordance with law. The Election Commission of India issued an order dated 13.3.2013 , a copy of which has been filed as Annexure R-1. By the aforesaid order, the District Magistrate of the District was directed to take following steps for the purpose of holding free and fair election:- “5. The District Administration shall make fool-proof arrangements for keeping the deposited fire arms in safe custody. Proper receipt must be given to the licence holders depositing the fire arms. It shall be the bounden duty of the District Administration to ensure that all fire arms deposited with the Administration are returned to the licence holders immediately after one week after the declaration of results. 6. Prohibitory orders under section 144 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be issued banning the carrying of licensed arms as soon as an election is announced and should be effective till the declaration of results. 7. This ban shall, not be applicable to those communities who are entitled to display weapons by long standing law, custom and usage. 6. Prohibitory orders under section 144 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall be issued banning the carrying of licensed arms as soon as an election is announced and should be effective till the declaration of results. 7. This ban shall, not be applicable to those communities who are entitled to display weapons by long standing law, custom and usage. This shall, however, not prevent the District Administration to impound weapons of any such persons of even such communities if they are found to be indulging in violence or posing a threat to the maintenance of law and order and peaceful conduct of elections. In these cases also the fire arms shall remain impounded till one week after the declaration of results.” 4. From the perusal of the order, it is clear that the Election Commission of India has clearly mentioned that the District Magistrate shall issue prohibitory orders under section 144 of CrPC and shall also issue the order banning the carrying of licence arms as soon as the election is declared and should be effective till the declaration of result. If the District Magistrate would not issue any order in regard to depositing the arms licence by the arms licence holders, then it would be very difficult for the District Magistrate to follow the order of Election Commission in accordance with law. These are preventive measures, which have been taken by the Election Commission. Hence, the District Magistrate is competent to issue such directions. 5. Article 324 of the Constitution of India provides that the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in the Election Commission in regard to all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State. Hence, the Election Commission has power to issue orders in regard to free and fair election. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the unreported judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case to Uma Kant Yadav State of U.P. and others (W.P. No. 14434/2007), we are not in agreement with the order passed by the Allahabad High Court. 7. We have specifically observed that in accordance by the order passed by the Election Commission, the District Magistrate can pass order in regard to directing the arms holders to deposit their arms for a particular period. 8. 7. We have specifically observed that in accordance by the order passed by the Election Commission, the District Magistrate can pass order in regard to directing the arms holders to deposit their arms for a particular period. 8. In such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition, however, it is obligatory on the part of the District Magistrate to ascertain that the arms be kept in safe custody. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. No order as to costs.