JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Sri Chandra Bhanu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners by means of this writ petition are challenging the act of the respondents directing them to deposit their fire arms at the concerned Police Station or with the fire arm dealers, in view of the order passed by the Election Commission of India for holding free and fair Elections. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that without any order in writing, the Police Officials of the concerned Police Station have approached to the petitioners and have directed to deposit the "fire arms", for which, the petitioners have got the valid license issued by the competent authority and the period of the license is still continuing. 4. He further submitted that the Police Officials of the concerned Police Station have directed the petitioners to deposit the fire arms on account of certain orders passed by the respondent No.1, in pursuance to the directions issued by the Election Commission of India. 5. On the basis of instruction received, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Election Commission of India, has ordered that the fire arm holders should deposit their fire arms in spite of having valid fire arms license, in expectation to maintain law and order in the Country for peaceful holding of the Elections. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on certain judgment and orders passed by this Court. 7. In Writ Petition No.241 (M/S) of 2002, this Court while deciding the writ petition, vide judgment and order dated 25.01.2002, made following observations:- "In view of the direction issued by the Election Commission of India and the law declared by this Court, it is expected form the authorities that they shall not compel any license holders for fire arms to surrender their arms if they are not involved in any criminal case. It is also clarified that the State is free to take action against the persons who have been released on bail, against the persons who are having criminal history and those who were earlier convicted or previously involved in rioting at the time of election." 8. It is also clarified that the State is free to take action against the persons who have been released on bail, against the persons who are having criminal history and those who were earlier convicted or previously involved in rioting at the time of election." 8. Further, this Court in the case of Tula Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.1487 (M/S) of 2007, along with other connected matters, decided on 29.03.2007, in the identical matter, has passed the following order :- "In the garb of elections, the very purpose of granting fire arms licences for self defence and personal security cannot be taken away form the bonafide licence holders of fire arms which is against the law, makes it clear that right to self defence, personal security and protection of life is the basic criteria and these rights cannot and should not be taken away by sweepingly ordering the deposit of fire arms during the elections, putting the life and security of all and sundry who holds the arm licences in imminent danger without following the provisions of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are being disposed of with the following directions:- i. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State Government that the citizens who have valid fire arms license including the petitioners, may not be compelled to deposit their fire arms in general merely on the basis of the ensuing Assembly Elections. ii. It is also commanded that no District Magistrate or District Superintendent of Police or any Officer subordinate to them shall compel the citizens in general to deposit their fire arm unless there is an order of the Central Government as indicated herein above in the judgment. However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibit orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of the Arms Act or under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after application of mind. However, the above directions shall not preclude the competent officer/authority to pass orders/prohibit orders in individual cases or in general under the provisions of the Arms Act or under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 after application of mind. It will also not preclude the District Magistrates/SSPs/S.P.s/Incharge of the Districts to seize weapons and take action against the holders of fire arms licence under the provisions of the Arms Act in case any attempt is made by any citizen to display or carry firearms at any time till the end of the elections as the orders have already been passed by the District Magistrate under Section 144 Cr.P.C. It is further clarified that in case any citizen has criminal antecedents or found displaying the arms, action may be taken against them in accordance with the provisions of law. District Magistrates are also directed to pass orders after examining the individual cases for suspending the licences and ensuring the deposit of arms in cases related to persons who have criminal history or who are on bail or lack clean antecedents as the same might involve interference in the conduct of the free and fair Elections." 9. In Writ C No. 17436 of 2014 - Harihar Singh and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others (decided on 02.04.2014), this Court has considered all the aspects and made following observations :- "Even so, the general powers of superintendence, direction and control of the elections vested in the Commission under Article 324(1) are subject to any law made under Article 327 or under Article 328 of the Constitution. The Election Commission has no unlimited and arbitrary powers. It is clothed with powers of an executive charged with the duty of securing 12 the due conduct of elections. It cannot take upon itself a purely legislative activity. Article 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by Legislation and where the Act or the Rules are silent, the Commission has no doubt plenary powers under Article 324 to give any direction in respect of conduct of election. (See, for instance, N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 ; A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) 2 SCC 656 ; Kanhaiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi (1985) 4 SCC 628 ). (See, for instance, N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 ; A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) 2 SCC 656 ; Kanhaiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi (1985) 4 SCC 628 ). It follows that the Election Commission cannot override Legislative enactments and has no jurisdiction under Article 324 to interfere with the discharge of statutory functions, or to direct or control the exercise of statutory powers, duties, functions and discretion by the concerned statutory authorities. 14-The power of the District Magistrate or any other concerned Magistrate to take action under Section 144 Cr. P.C. is discretionary. The discretion is to be exercised according to law. A person entrusted with a discretion must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider and must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant or extraneous considerations. (See Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture (1968) 1 All ER 694). So, if the District Magistrate does not use his own discretion and acts merely on the directions of some other authority, his decision will be vitiated by non-application of mind and it cannot stand. 15-If the District Magistrate or other concerned Magistrate intends to take action under Section 144, he should himself consider the material facts of the case and form a bonafide opinion on relevant considerations whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and whether immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable. If in the opinion of the Magistrate concerned, such a situation exists, then he may direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management." 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the case law, relied upon by counsel for the parties. 11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and observation made in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending. 12. 11. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and observation made in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending. 12. In Harihar Singh & 6 Others (supra) following directions have been passed:- "i. A mandamus is issued to the respondents not to compel the petitioners/arms licensees to deposit their fire-arms, unless their case/cases has/have been objectively (emphasis is mine) reviewed/assessed by a competent authority in writing and after complying with the provisions of law. ii. The Director General, U.P. Police, Lucknow shall forthwith issue instructions to all Senior Supdt. of Police/Supdt. of Police of the districts concerned to ensure that the aforesaid mandamus is complied with. Copy of this order be supplied to Sri J.K. Khanna, learned standing counsel, who shall forthwith forward the same both to the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow and to the Director General of Police, Lucknow, U.P for compliance." 13. Thus, taking into consideration the reasons recorded in the aforesaid judgments, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to compel the petitioners/arms licensees to deposit their fire-arms, unless their cases have been objectively reviewed/assessed by a competent authority in writing and after complying with the provisions of law. 14. However, it is clarified that the benefit of this order shall not be available in those cases where license of the Fire Arm has expired prior to filing of the writ petition.