CITIZENS WITH VALID FIREARM LICENSES CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO DEPOSIT THEIR FIREARMS MERELY BECAUSE LOK SABHA ELECTIONS ARE APPROACHING. SUCH ORDERS CAN ONLY BE ISSUED IN INDIVIDUAL CASES OR IN GENERAL UNDER THE ARMS ACT OR THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.

These all writ petitions have been filed against the ac tion of the Officer Incharge of the con cerned Police Stations compelling the petitioners and others persons naving fiire-arms licence to deposit their firearms, at the police station of their respective areas. Although in these cases no written direc tion has been issued by any officer or authority but in spite of that the citizens having valid licence are being compelled to deposit their fire-arms.

2. This Court has noticed that a num ber of writ petitions have been filed by

individuals in the post and are being filed in respect of the directions oral or written in general to the licence holders to deposit the fire-arms by different officers of the State Government like District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Officer Incharge of the concerned police stations. One of the orders of the District Magistrate, Barabanki has been produced which is dated 26th August, 1999, by which the District Magistrate in view of the Lpk Sabha Elections suspended all the fire-arms licences in the district of Barabanki with a direction to deposit the fire-arms at the police stations or the arm dealers.

3. In the past several writ petitions have been filed by the individuals and in terim orders have been passed to the effect that in case the* petitioner holds a valid licence and the same has not been suspended or revoked he shall not be forced to deposit fire-arms etc. In this regard the number of some of the writ petitions are 2348 (M/s) of 1999, 176 (M/w) of 1998, 177 (MS) of 1998, 2361 (M/s) of 1999 and 227 (M/s) of 1998 etc. resulting increase of litigation and pen dency of writ petition in this Court, there fore, this Court has considered, it fit to decide these writ petitions considering that the citizens having fire-arm licence are being compelled to deposit their fire arms in general and also decided to take a decision by treating these writ petitions as Public Interest Litigating so that in future the individual may not file writ petitions in this Court and this Court may not be bur dened more by keeping the writ petitions pending for decision.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned standing Counsel at quite length.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have urged that the oral direc tion to deposit firearm has been made due to ensuing Lok Sabha Elections. Learned standing Counsel has submitted that merely on the basis of oral directions writ petition is not maintainable.

6. There can be two mode under the law for taking action in connection with the preventive measures or in respect of action for depositing fire-arm. The first mode is Section 144, Cr PC underwhich an order is liable to be passed by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate specially em powered by the State Government in this behalf to be made in writing stating the material fact of the case. The second mode is action under the Arms Act.

7. In the above regard a Division Bench of this Court in the matter otmohd. Arifkhan v. District Magistrate, 1994 (12) LCD 93, has held as under :-

". . . . . . The order passed, under Section 144 must state the material fact and that gives a clear indication that the District Magistrate shall form his opinion on the basis of those facts. The impugned order does not state the material facts of the case as well. We find that the condi tion precedent for taking action under Section 144 has not been fulfilled in the present case and, therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and liable to be struck down.

The power of the District Magistrate or any other concerned Magistrate to take action under Section 144, Cr PC 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 con siderations and not by