JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) By means of present criminal writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner to deposit his arm without any legal order passed by the competent authority under the Arms Act and without following the procedure as prescribed under the Act. 2. It is the definite statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in Roorkee Civil Court since 1976, is being asked on his mobile phone to surrender his firearm with police station Gangnahar Roorkee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that if a written order is passed by the authority concerned, the petitioner is ready to surrender his firearm (pistol) with the police station concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Uma Kant Yadav vs State of U.P., [2007 (58) ACC 147], but this Court does not intend to go into the details of said decision, inasmuch, an undertaking has already been given on behalf of the petitioner that no sooner a written order is passed by the appropriate authority, the petitioner will surrender his firearm before the police station concerned. 5. In view of the undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner on behalf of the petitioner, the criminal writ petition is closed with a direction upon the respondents to pass a written order, in accordance with law, if they or any of them, intend to direct the petitioner to surrender his firearm. 6. Let copy of the order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.