# Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1523
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002411 of 1999
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-arif-khan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53519
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Firearms -
Deposit
of
licensed
firearms
during
Parliamentary elections - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 24-A & 24-B - Validity of police
direction
requiring
deposit
-
No
suspension/cancellation of licence - Lack
of
statutory
backing
-
Election
Commission - licence-holders cannot be
compelled to deposit firearms unless
licence is suspended or cancelled in
accordance with law - no nexus between
objective sought to be achieved and
impugned action - Deposit of licensed
firearm cannot be enforced in absence of
statutory
order
suspending/cancelling
1524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
licence - Police cannot compel deposit
solely on commencement of election
process - Authorities shall not compel
firearm license holders to deposit firearms
without a prior written notice, especially if
they have valid licenses, no criminal
antecedents, and were granted the license
for security purposes. (Para - 8, 20 to 23)

Petitioners, including advocates and law-abiding
citizens, holding valid and renewed firearm
licenses for their security - having no
criminal antecedents, were directed by
police officials to deposit their firearms at
the
police
station
due
to
upcoming
parliamentary elections - by means of a
general order without any written notice -
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a
writ
of
mandamus
commanding
the
authorities not to compel them to deposit
their firearms. (Para - 2,3)

HELD: - In order to ensure peace and peaceful
conduct
of
elections,
firearms
may
be
deposited to the police station concerned by
issuing a written notice, but the authorities in
no case shall compel the firearm licence
holders to deposit their firearms in case they
have a valid license, no criminal antecedents,
and the license was issued for security.
Respondents were directed not to compel the
petitioners to deposit their firearms without a
prior written notice. For causing harassment
to the petitioners by means of a general
order, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to
be paid to the petitioners within six months.
(Para - 21 to 24)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1523
time, which also amounts to review of
earlier order dated 29.12.1997. A perusal of
the impugned order would reveal that on
the basis of letter sent by the Director
Incharge, Social Forestry, the order has
been passed. In the said letter, it was
alleged that the land in question was
reserved for social forestry. Then allegedly
inquiry was conducted by the Naib
Tehsildar and then impugned order was
passed by which the earlier order dated
29.12.1997 passed by his predecessor, has
been
cancelled
without
giving
any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

7. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that subsequent officer
does not have jurisdiction to review the
earlier order passed by his predecessor. His
next submission is that the order impugned
has been passed without notice and without
giving opportunity of hearing. In this
regard, statement of fact has been made in
paragraph 18 and 19 of the writ petition.

8.
On
the other
hand,
learned
Additional CSC for respondent - State
submitted that the impugned order does not
suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is
just and valid order.

9.
I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

10. It is admitted case of the parties
that prior to passing of the order, no notice
nor opportunity of hearing was provided to
the petitioner. It has also been admitted that
the power to review does not have with the
officer - respondent No.1, who has passed
the impugned order. The statement of fact
made in paragraph 18 & 19 of the writ
petition has been admitted in paragraph 20
of the counter affidavit that no notice nor
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner.

11. In view of reasons recorded
above, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.

12. The impugned order dated
07.02.2001 is hereby quashed.

13. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1523
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002411 of 1999

Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
M.A. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Administrative Law - Firearms -
Deposit
of
licensed
firearms
during
Parliamentary elections - Arms Act, 1959 -
Section 24-A & 24-B - Validity of police
direction
requiring
deposit
-
No
suspension/cancellation of licence - Lack
of
statutory
backing
-
Election
Commission - licence-holders cannot be
compelled to deposit firearms unless
licence is suspended or cancelled in
accordance with law - no nexus between
objective sought to be achieved and
impugned action - Deposit of licensed
firearm cannot be enforced in absence of
statutory
order
suspending/cancelling
1524 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
licence - Police cannot compel deposit
solely on commencement of election
process - Authorities shall not compel
firearm license holders to deposit firearms
without a prior written notice, especially if
they have valid licenses, no criminal
antecedents, and were granted the license
for security purposes. (Para - 8, 20 to 23)

Petitioners, including advocates and law-abiding
citizens, holding valid and renewed firearm
licenses for their security - having no
criminal antecedents, were directed by
police officials to deposit their firearms at
the
police
station
due
to
upcoming
parliamentary elections - by means of a
general order without any written notice -
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a
writ
of
mandamus
commanding
the
authorities not to compel them to deposit
their firearms. (Para - 2,3)

HELD: - In order to ensure peace and peaceful
conduct
of
elections,
firearms
may
be
deposited to the police station concerned by
issuing a written notice, but the authorities in
no case shall compel the firearm licence
holders to deposit their firearms in case they
have a valid license, no criminal antecedents,
and the license was issued for security.
Respondents were directed not to compel the
petitioners to deposit their firearms without a
prior written notice. For causing harassment
to the petitioners by means of a general
order, a cost of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded to
be paid to the petitioners within six months.
(Para - 21 to 24)

Petition disposed of. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ravi Shankar Tiwari & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
Thru. D.M. Amethi & ors., 2024: AHC-LKO:
25540

2. Mohd. Arif Khan Vs D.M., LCD1994 (12)

3. Shahabuddin Vs St. of U.P. (H.C.-L.B.), ACC
2000(40)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri M.A. Khan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam
Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners
and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners have prayed for
issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus, commanding the opposite
parties not to compel the petitioners to
deposit their firearms and licences at police
station concerned.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
petitioner nos.1,2,4 and 6 are the practising
advocates while petitioner nos.3,5,7 to 13
are the respected and law abiding citizens
having good antecedents. The petitioners
have made an application for grant of
firearm licence for the security of their life
and properties.

The opposite party no.2 after due
enquiry from the concerned police station
having found that there was nothing against
the petitioners to show that they had any
criminal antecedents had granted firearms
licence to them which were renewed from
time to time and are valid till date. The
firearms licence of the petitioners were
neither suspended nor cancelled so far and
the petitioner who have been granted the
fire arms licence for protecting their life
and properties are holding the same and are
possession of their respective firearms.

The opposite party nos.3 to 7 all of
a sudden sent the police officials at the
resident of the petitioners directing them to
deposit their firearms at the police station
concerned as the process of parliamentary
election has begun. The petitioners have
informed the police authorities who had
visited the residence of the petitioners that
5 All. Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1525
their licences are valid. The licences were
granted to them by the licencing authority
and the said licences have neither been
suspended nor cancelled as such the
petitioners cannot be forced to deposit their
firearms at police station concerned as the
same are required for the protection of their
life and property.

The police officials i.e. opposite
party nos.4 to 7 are insisting the petitioners
to deposit their firearms alongwith licence
failing which deterent action shall be taken
against them and they shall be deprived of
their firearms. The above licence issued to
the petitioner by licencing authority were
renewed from time to time and no
complaint whatsoever of any kind is
against them nor their licences have been
suspended or cancelled so far as such the
verbal directions issued by opposite party
nos.4 to 7 for deposite of firearms by
petitioners are not only illegal but also
without jurisdiction.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that in any case no such
directions to the best of their knowledge
have
been
issued
by
the
election
commission for the deposit of the fire arms
to the petitioners concerned and during the
election
period
the
entire
police
administration as well as other authorities
will be busy in election process without
making
any
other
arrangement
for
providing security to the life and property
of the licence holders. Thus, the order
whereby the petitioners are required to
deposit their firearms is not only arbitrary
but also illegal.

5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners next submits that no notification
under Section 24-A and 24-B of the Arms
Act has been issued so far to the best of the
knowledge of the petitioners for prohibiting
the possession of fire arms in the area or
under Section 24-B prohibiting the carrying
arms in or through public places, as sch the
order issued for depositing the fire arms are
not only illegal but without jurisdiction.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners next submits that in a similar
circumstance, this Hon'ble Court has been
pleased to restrain the respondents from
compelling the petitioners to surrender their
firearms merely on the ground that the
election of Lok Sabha has been announced.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the
action of opposite party nos.4 to 7
compelling them to deposit their fire arms
with the police station concerned which has
resulted in substantial failure of justice, the
petitioners having left with no other
alternative
and
efficacious
remedy
available but to file the present writ
petition.

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that no action having
been taken by the respondents to cancel or
suspend the licence of the petitioners nor
any recourse has been taken under Section
24-A and 24-B of the Act, the action of the
respondents in compelling the petitioners to
deposit their firearms is not only illegal but
without jurisdiction.

8.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners next submitted that there is no
nexus with the object sought to be achieved
by depositing the firearms of the petitioners
at the police station by opposite parties,
hence the action of the opposite parties are
not only illlegal, arbitrary and unjust but
also unreasonable.

9.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners next submitted that the police
1526 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authorities cannot compel the petitioners to
deposit their firearms and the licences
unless and until the licence issued to the
petitioners
have
been
cancelled
or
suspended as such the action of opposite
parties is not only illegal but arbitrary.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners next submitted that there is no
provision in the Arms Act for issuing
direction by police authorities to deposit
the firearms so long as the licence issued to
a licence holder is suspended or cancelled,
hence the action of the opposite parties are
illegal and without jurisdiction.

11. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered
in the case of Ravi Shankar Tiwari And 4
Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt
Magistrate
Amethi
And
3
Others
reported in Neutral Citation No.-2024:
AHC-LKO: 25540.

12. Learned Standing Counsel for
the opposite parties submits that in order
to ensure smooth and peaceful conduct of
elections and maintenance of law and
order situation during elections, the
Election Commission has issued the
circular dated July 6, 1993 stating "A
fire-arms licence holders shall be directed
to deposit all their firearms with the
District Administration during the period
their
firearms
with
the
District
Administration during the period of one
week from the day after the last day for
withdrawal of candidatures and this shall
be firmly enforced. The fire-arms shall
remain deposited till a week after the
declaration of results. If in view of the
Director General of Police, any person
has a real threat to his person/property, he
should
be
provided
with
necessary
security by the police but he should under
no circumstances be allowed to carry his
own personal fire-arms, if he has any, or
be accompanied by anyone with any
firearms, licensed or otherwise. This will
ensure checking of carrying of fire-arms
during the campaign period generally
(thus minimising incidents of serious
disturbances of election meetings) and
specifically on the day of polling and
counting.

13.
Learned
counsel
for
the
opposite parties has stated in circular that
the Commission directs the Central and
State Governments shall strictly implement
each and every of the above measures.
They are required to issue detailed and
comprehensive
instructions
to
all
concerned authorities to take the proposed
steps and assist the election authorities in
the peaceful and smooth conduct of free
and fair poll.

14. In support of his submissions,
learned Chief Standing Counsel has relied
upon the following judgments:

 (i) Mohd. Arif Khan v. Distt.
Magistrate reported in LCD1994(12)

 (ii) Shahabuddin v. State of U.P.
(H.C.-L.B.) reported in ACC 2000(40)

15.
I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and gone through the
material available on record as well as
judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the parties.

16. To resolve the controversy
involved in the present writ petition,
Section 24A of the Arms Act, 1959 is
extracted hereinbelow:
5 All. Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1527
 [24 A provides Prohibition as to
possession of notified arms in disturbed
areas etc. - (1) Where the Central
Government is satisfied that there is
extensive disturbance of public peace and
tranquility or imminent danger of such
disturbance in any area and that for the
prevention of offences involving the use of
arms in such area, it is necessary or
expedient so it may by notification in the
area, it is necessary or expedients to do, it
may by notification in the Official Gazette-

 (a) specify the limits of such area;

 (b)
direct
that
before
the
commencement of the period specified in
the notification (which period shall be a
period commencing from a date no earlier
than the fourth day after the date of
publication of the notification in the
Official Gazette), every person having in
his possession in such area any arms of
such description as may be specified in
the notification (the arms so specified
being hereafter in this section referred to
an notified arms), shall deposit the same
before
such
commencement
in
accordance with the provisions of Section
21 and for this purpose the possession by
such person of any notified arms shall ,
notwithstanding anything contained in
any other provision of this Act (except
Section 4]) or in any other law for the
time being in force, as from the date of
publication of such notification in the
Official Gazette be deemed to have
ceased to be lawful;

 (c) declare that as from the
commencement of, and until the expiry of,
the period specified in the notification, it
shall not be lawful for any person to have
in his possession in such area any notified
arms;
 (d) authorize any such officer
subordinate to the Central Government or
a State Government as may be specified in
the notification

 (i) to search at anytime during
the period specified in the notification any
person in, or passing through, or any
premises in, or any animal or vessel or
vehicle or other conveyance of whatever
nature in or passing through, or any
receptacle or other container of whatever
nature in, such area if such officer has
reason to believe that any notified arms are
secreted by such person or in such
premises or on such animal or in such
vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or in
such
receptacle
or
other
container:
(ii) to seize at any time during the period
specified in the notification any notified
arms in the possession of any person in
such area or discovered through a search
under sub-clause (i), and detain the same
during
the
period
specified
in
the
notification."

 (2) The period specified in a
notification issued under sub-section(1)in
respect of any area shall not, in the first
instance, exceed ninety days, but the
Central Government may amend such
notification to extend such period from time
to time by any period not exceeding ninety
days at any one time if, in the opinion of
that Government, there continues to be in
such area such disturbance of public peace
and tranquility as is referred to in subsection(1)or imminent danger thereof and
that for the prevention of offences involving
the use of arms in such area it is necessary
or expedient so to do.

 (3) The provisions of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure,1973(2of1974).
relating to searches and seizures shall, so
1528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
far as may be, apply to any search or
seizure made under sub-section (1).

 (4)For the purposes of this
section,

 (i) "arms" includes ammunition;
 (ii) where the period specified in
a notification, as originally issued under
sub-section(1), is extended under subsection (2) then, in relation to such
notification, references in sub-section (1) to
"the period specified in the notification"
shall be construed as references to the
period as so extended.

17. Perusal of Section 24-A shows
that it empowers the Central Government
that if they are satisfied that there is
extensive disturbance of public peace and
tranquility or imminent danger of such
disturbance in any area it may directed that
every person having in his possession in
such area any arm of such description as
may be specified in the notification shall
deposit the same. The Central Government
may also authorise any such officer such
officer
subordinate
to
the
Central
Government or State Government to search
or to cease the firearms.

18.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has placed reliance on Ravi
Shankar Tiwari (supra). Paragraph 12 of
the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

 12. Thus, on the reasons recorded
in the aforesaid judgments, this writ
petition is finally disposed of with the
direction that in case the petitioner possess
valid arms license for his fire arms and no
written order has been issued by the
competent authority against him with the
direction to deposit the arms, the petitioner
will not be compelled to deposit his fire
arms.

 "As an abundant precaution, it is
provided that in individual cases where the
Government feels that a person is required
to deposit his fire arms license then an
individual notice shall be issued to the
person concerned requiring him to deposit
his fire arms which would be without
prejudice to the aforesaid directions issued
by this Court."

19.
Learned
Chief
Standing
Counsel has also relied upon the the
judgments:

 (i) Mohd. Arif Khan (supra):

 11. The material portion of
Section 144 CrPC, relevant to for the
purposes of this case, reads as follows:

 "(1) In cases where, in the
opinion of a District Magistrate, a Subdivisional
Magistrate
or
any
other
Executive Magistrate specially empowered
by the State Government in this bebalf,
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
under this section and immediate prevention
or speedy remedy is desirable,
such
Magistrate may, by a written order stating the
material facts of the case and served in the
manner provided by Section 134, direct any
person to abstain from a certain act or to take
certain order with respect to certain property
in his possession or under the management, if
such Magistrate considers that such direction
is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent,
obstruction, annoyance or injury to any
person lawfully employed, or danger to
human life, health or safety, or a disturbance
of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an
affray.
5 All. Mohd. Arif Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1529
 (2) An order under this section
may, in cases of emergency or in cases
where the circumstances do not admit of
the serving in due time of a notice upon the
person against whom the order is directed,
be passed ex parte.

 (3) An order under this section may
be directed to a party or individual, or to
persons residing in a particular place or area,
or to the public generally when frequenting or
visiting a particular place or area."

 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

 (ii) Shahabuddin (supra):

 25.
However,
the
directions
issued in this case shall not preclude the
competent
officer/
authority
to
pass
prohibitory orders in individual cases or in
general under the provisions of Arms Act
or Code of Civil Procedure,1973 after
application of mind in accordance with
law".

20. Perusal of the above-extracted
judgments indicates that the Court has
specifically directed that citizens show have
valid firearm licenses may not be compelled
to deposit their fire arms license in general
merely on the basis that Lok Sabha elections
is to be held in near future. Further the
judgment in the case of Mohd. Arif Khan
(supra) was directed to be followed by the
State Government and its officers posted in
the districts within the State of U.P.

21. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
the opinion that in order to ensure peace in
the society and for peaceful conduct of
elections and for maintenance of law and
order during elections, the firearms may be
deposited to the police station concerned by
issuing a written notice to the firearm licence
holders but the authorities in no case shall
compel the firearm licence holders to deposit
their firearms in case where they have a valid
license which are renewed from time to time
and have no criminal antecedents and had
issued firearms licence for their security
purpose.

22. Accordingly, this writ petition is
disposed off directing the respondents not to
compel the petitioners to deposit their
firearms at the concerned police station
without issuing a prior written notice in
regard to deposit of firearm licence.

23. As an abundant precaution, it is
provided that in individual cases where the
Government feels that a person is required
to deposit his fire arms license then an
individual notice shall be issued to the
person concerned requiring him to deposit
his fire arms which would be without
prejudice to the aforesaid directions issued
by this Court.

24. In view of the above, for
causing harassment to the petitioners, cost
1530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is to be awarded to the respondents for
compelling the petitioners to deposit
firearms licence by means of general order.
The cost is quantified to Rs.25,000/-
payable to the petitioners within six
months.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1530
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 71 of 2025
Connected with
Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2024
With
Custom Appeal No. 3 of 2025

M/S Rawder Petroleum Pvt. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ratnesh Chandra, Sankalp Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anidya Shastri, Dipak Seth, Pawan
Kumar Awasthi

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Customs
Act,1962-Sections
28H, 28I & 28J-Customs Tariff Act,1975:
Chapter 8 Vs Chapter 20-M/s Rawder
Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. imported "roasted
areca nuts" after obtaining an advance
ruling from the Customs Authority for
Advance Ruling (CAAR), which classified
the product under Tariff Item 2008 19 20
(Chapter 20 of Customs Tariff Act)-The
Customs
Department
disputed
this
classification and claimed the product was
instead "dried areca nuts" falling under
Chapter 8, specifically Tariff Item 0802
80-The department challenged the CAAR
ruling via Custom Appeals and also
refused to release the imported goods,
citing adverse test reports from CRCL,
New Delhi-The importer, in turn, filed a
writ petition for release of the goods and
to enforce the advance ruling-The Court
upheld the CAAR's ruling, it held that
roasting is a process distinct from drying
involving high heat that alters the physical
and chemical properties of the nut-Since
Chapter
8
deals

with
moderate
heat/drying and Chapter 20 includes
roasted nuts, the classification under 2008
19 20 was correct-Conflicting lab reports
were presented, private lab reported
moisture content below 4%, declaring the
nuts
as
roasted
while
CRCL,
New
Delhi(govt. lab) found moisture content
above 7%, declaring them dried and unfit
for human consumption- However, The
court found merit in the importer's claim
and circumstances-Hence, the importer's
goods cannot be treated as mis declared
solely based on disputed lab reports-the
Impugned letter dated 27.12.2024 and
seizure memo dated 10.03.2025 quashedCustoms directed to release the goods
immediately. (Para 1 to 46)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Alladi Venkateshwarlu Vs Govt. of A.P. (1978)
AIR SC 945

2. M/s S.T. Enterprises Vs Commr. of Customs
(2021) 378 ELT A 142 SC

3. Commr. Customs Vs Shehnaz commodity
International Pvt Ltd.. dated 01/08/2023

4. STP Ltd. Vs Collr. of Central Excise,
Patna(1998) 1 SCC 297

5. M/s Universal Impex Vs Commr. of Customs,
W.P. No. 23836 of 2024, dated 22/11/2024

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

(1)
Heard
Sri
Ratnesh
Chandra
assisted by Sri Sankalp Mishra, Sri