# Ram Hit v. State of U.P. through D.M., Fatehpur and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 121
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-05-26
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-hit-v-state-of-u-p-through-d-m-fatehpur-and-others-39473
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

3All] Ram Hit V. State of U.P. through D.M., Fatehpur and others
121
by the occupiers of sugar factories are
higher than the market ." However, this
is only of the relevant factors and is not the
conciuse factor for determining the market
price. There may be other relevant factors
also (e.g. the price, which the other sugar
factories charged for the 40% reserved
quota at the relevant time) and hence we
are not expressing a final opinion on this
point.

13. Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal, learned
counsel for the respondents has alleged
that the same sugar factory has sold the
molasses to the chemical industry @ 116/-
per quintal in August and September
1999. We are not expressing our final
opinion on this matter. It is possible that
the molasses was sold at a lower price due
to pressure from some authority or for
some other reason, and hence that may not
necessarily be the market price. It is our
considered opinion that the market price
should be determined after hearing both
the parties or their counsels and also
considering the evidence adduced by them
by a retired High Court Judge preferably
within three months of production of a
certified copy of this order.

14. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned
counsel for the petitioners agrees that the
remuneration to the retired Judge will be
paid by the petitioners. We direct that the
petitioners hall pay Rs.50,000/- to the said
retired Judge and we nominate for the
purpose Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N.
Verma, a retired Judge of this Court and
former Chairman of the Monopolies
Commission. The petitioners shall also pay
a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month to Hon'ble
Justice Verma in addition to his
remuneration for engaging a Secretary for
the purpose. The petitioners shall also pay
any incidental expenses incurred by Mr.
Justice Verma to him. If the proceedings
before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Verma take
longer than three months then a further
sum of Rs.25,000/- will be paid to him by
the petitioners. These payments must be
made in advance to Mr. Justice Verma by
the petitioners. Also, the parties must
supply copies of all documents on the
record of this petition to him. The parties
or their counsels shall appear before
Hon'ble
Mr.
Justice

Verma
on
29.07.2000, and no separate notices shall
be sent to them.

15. Since respondents have paid
Rs.125/- per quintal for the amount of
molasses which they have lifted under the
interim orders of this Court, if it is found
by the Hon'ble Judge to whom we are
sending the matter that the market price
was more than 125/- per quintal, then the
balance will be paid by the respondents to
the petitioners within two months of the
decision of the said Hon'ble Judge. If,
however, it is found that the free market
price was less than Rs. 125/- per quintal
than the petitioners will pay the balance to
the respondents.

Petition is allowed . No orders as to
cost.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$' 7+
7+ -81(
-81(
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( $.<2* -
7+( +21
%/( $.<2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DP +LW
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH
)DWHKSXU DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
122
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 0DQLVK 1LJDP
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

$UPV $FW UHDG ZLWK &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
$UWLFOH

.
'LVWULFW
(OHFWLRQ
&RPPLVVLRQ
V SRZHU WR GLUHFW DXWKRULWLHV
WR
FRPSHO
FLWL]HQV
LQ
JHQHUDO
WR
GHSRVLWVXUUHQGHU WKHLU OLFHQFHG ILUH DUPV
DW
WKH
3ROLFH
6WDWLRQ
RQ
WKH
HYH
RI
3DQFKD\DW
(OHFWLRQ
1R
GLUHFWLRQ
E\
VWDWXWRU\
DXWKRULW\
XQGHU
$UPV
$FW
YDOLGLW\
+HOG 3DUD
$ ZULW LQ WKH QDWXUH RI PDQGDPXV LV
LVVXHG FRPPDQGLQJ WKH UHVSRQGHQWV QRW
WR
FRPSHO
WKH
FLWL]HQV
ZLWKLQ
WKHLU
UHVSHFWLYH
MXULVGLFWLRQ
WR
VXUUHQGHUGHSRVLW
WKHLU
ILUH
DUPV
SURYLGHG WKH\ KHOG YDOLG OLFHQFH ZLWKRXW
WKHUH EHLQJ D VSHFLILF RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH
FRPSHWHQW
VWDWXWRU\
DXWKRULW\
XQGHU
$UPV $FW PHUHO\ RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH
JHQHUDO RUGHU RQ WKH JURXQG RI KROGLQJ RI
3DQFKD\DW HOHFWLRQV
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 VXSSO 6&&
 $&-
 $/5
$,5 6&

By the Court

1. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying
for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter
dated 26.5.2000 issued by Additional
Commissioner State Election Commission
U.P. respondent no. 5 (Annexure-III to the
writ petition)to the extent it required all the
District Magistrates, District Panchayat
Raj Officers and Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police to take
action for getting licenced arms to be
surrendered
and
deposited
with
the
concerned authority and for a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents
not to compel the petitioner, holder of a
valid licenced fire arms to deposit his arm
on the basis of sweeping observation that
Panchayat Raj elections were going to be
held in near future.

2. Petitioner has filed copy of a News
report allegedly containing a statement of
District Magistrate concerned disclosing
that licenced arms of all the persons in the
district shall be required to be deposited
necessarily and in case fire arms are not
deposited on or before 26.5.2000,all the
licences of such persons same shall be
declared invalid and illegal.

3. Every day number of writ petitions
are being filed before this court on some
what
similar
facts
and
allegations
containing that no sweeping or general
order can be issued for depositing fire
arms unless it is contemplated under Arms
Act for but suspension and its cancellation.

4. In a nut shell, grievance of all
these petitioners is that District Election
Commission has no power to direct the
authorities for compelling citizen holding
Fire Arms Licence to surrender on the
mere ground that Panchayat Raj Elections
are in the offing.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners in the present petition as well as
in all other similar writ petitions before
this Court on date, learned Standing
Counsel on behalf of the State Authorities
and the learned counsel representing U.P.
District Election Commission.

6. With the consent of the parties writ
petition/s are being decided finally at the
admission stage. As agreed by the parties,
3All] Ram Hit V. State of U.P. through D.M., Fatehpur and others
123
particularly in view of the fact that
Panchayat Elections are expected to be
over in a couple of weeks, this court has
decided
the
petitions
finally
without
waiting
for
counter
and
rejoinder
affidavits. It was also agreed at the bar that
these petitions may be decided on legal
ground
regarding
competence of the
respondents to issue a general order of the
nature in question (i.e. dated 26.5.2000
referred to above). Before this court deals
with the legal submissions of the parties it
will be interesting to note that Additional
Commissioner,
District
Election
Commission vide its letter dated 26.5.2000
has given direction in a sweeping manner
for all the fire arms to be deposited. The
said letter of the commission dated
26.5.2000 merely required the District
Administration
to
citen its grip by
rounding up unsocial elements, Mafia etc.
and further requiring these authorities to be
on constant vigil for maintaining law and
order. This letter merely states that while
keeping an eye unsocial elements and
Mafi as the preventive action contemplated
under Criminal procedure (107/116/151
I.P.C.)
may
be
initiated
and
bond
(Muchalaka) may be obtained from such
persons including getting their fire arms
are
deposited/surrendered.
This
letter
clearly
mentioned
that
Election
Commission was to make aware and
conscious Administration to ensure law
and order and as a consequence thereof get
free, fair and peaceful elections.

7. Alleged statement of the District
Magistrate/Government Authorities on the
basis of the said letter of the commission
that all the fire arms will be got deposited
in the district is not within the directions
contained in the commission letter under
reference. It is interesting to note that on
behalf of the Government authorities no
resistance was made except taking stand
that State Authorities are getting fire arms
deposited on the direction of the State
Election Commission.

8. As already noted above, said stand
of the State authorities placed before this
court through Standing Counsel is

9. On behalf of State Election
Commission, Sri Mandhayan, Advocate
referred to Article 243 K and 324,
Constitution of India.

10. Article 243 K (1) of the
Constitution reads:
"The superintendence, direction and
control of electoral rolls for, and the
conduct of all elections to the Panchayats
shall be vested in a State Election
Commission consisting of a State Election
Commissioner to be appointed by the
Governor."

11. Article 324 is not relevant for our
purpose as it relates/deals with elections of
Parliament and Legislature of every state
apart from the elections to the office of
President and Vice President. The power
of superintendence and control to hold
elections
vested
in
the
Election
Commission.

12.Reading of Article 243 K(1)
clearly
shows
that
State
Election
Commissioner is vested with power to
have over all control, superintendence and
power to give directions to take all steps
for the conduct of elections to the
Panchayat. This Article in no manner
confers power upon the State Election
Commissioner to over ride Legislative
enactment's (Arms Act) or Cr.P.C.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
124
13. Learned counsel for the State
Election Commission has placed reliance
on the case of Election Commission of
India Vs. All India Anna Dravida Munetra
Kazahagam and another-1994 supp.(2)
Supreme Court Cases 689. In the said case
question before the Apex Court was
whether
Election
Commission
under
Article 324, Constitution of India had
power to restricting the hours of using
loudspeakers
fitted
on
vehicles
for
electioneering purpose.

14. It may be noted that using of
Loudspeaker
for
the
purpose
of
electioneering
purpose
was a matter
directly
related
to
the
election and
conducting of elections.

15. In the instant case, if a person
carries fire arm without violating any
provision of the Arms Act and without
attracting any of the prohibitory provisions
dealing with public order and law under
code of Criminal Procedure and also
otherwise does not interfere with the
peaceful life of the public at large the
matter will not be covered under the
expression "Conduct of elections".

16. On behalf of learned counsel for
the petitioner reliance has been placed
upon a few decisions. Two decisions
which are relevant and deals with the
question in hand are-

(1) Mohd. Arif Khan and others Vs.
District Magistrate, Lucknow and others,
1994 Allahabad Civil Journal 315. In this
case Division Bench of this Court was
dealing
with
a
circular
of
election
commission of similar nature. In para 17 of
the said judgement, Bench held that a
circular of the nature, as has been issued in
the
instant
case
(dated
26.5.2000,
Annexure-III to the writ petition), merely
on the basis of the directive of the Election
Commission suffers from non application
of mind and cannot be upheld. It was
further observed that Election Commission
under Article 324, Constitution of India
has
jurisdiction
to
issue
appropriate
directions within the scope of Article 324
with regard to conduct of election, but
cannot control the exercise of power or
discretion by a statutory authority under
the provisions of the law conferring power
on such authorities.

(2) Shahabuddin vs. State of U.P. and
others (High Court, Lucknow Bench) 2000
(38) A.L.R. 13.A learned Single Judge of
this Court relied upon the decision of the
case of Mohd. Arif Khan, after discussing
the various sections of code of Criminal
Procedure and Arms Act did not approve
the directions of the Election Commission
on the basis of sweeping observation that
election were to take place shortly. This
Court noticed all the facts and held that
fire arms on the basis of valid licence
could not be directed to be deposited
without there being written orders under
Arms Act. In the aforementioned case this
Court ok the view that a person holding
firearm under valid licence could not be
required to deposit the same on the basis of
the order passed without application of
mind and that too in accordance with law
and that no law permits passing of general
order to deposit fire arm on the direction of
Station House Officer of the Police
Station/District Magistrate. This Court
noticed that holding of elections was a
constitutional obligation but in the garb of
discharging such an obligation, persons
holding fire arms for their self defence, in
absence of relevant material or even a
shadow of suspicion for misusing the fire
arm could not be stripped off their
3All] Ram Hit V. State of U.P. through D.M., Fatehpur and others
125
fundamental right to protect their life. The
very purpose of fire arm is for personal
security could not be take away by an
authority
on
whims
for
no
reason
particularly when State Election Officers
and its authorities and officers did not, in
turn, ensured security of their property and
life from unlawful and unsocial elements.
Bonafide holders of fire arms thus could
not be compelled to deposit their fire arms
by placing them in the same category as
the lawful section in the society. There is
another aspect of the matter. It is a matter
of
common
knowledge
that
in
a
democratic country elections are to take
place at all levels i.e. Municipal elections,
panchayat elections, election of societies,
state elections, parliamentary elections,
etc. This will mean that a person who was
obtain valid licence and posses a fire arm
on that basis should deposit the same time
and again only on the whim of State
authorities, namely place and order can be
maintained
by
stripping
off
sensible
bonafide valid licence holders where as it
cannot ensure and assure the public that
unlawful elements in the society have been
divested of their unlawful arms.

17.In the case of Shahabuddin (Supra)
this Court issued following directions:-

(1) A writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the State of U.P. is issued
directing that the citizen who have valid
fire arm licences including the petitioners
may not be compelled to deposit their
including the petitioners may not be
compelled to deposit their fire arms in
general merely on the basis that Lok Sabha
Election is to be held in near future.

(2) It is also directed that no District
Magistrate or District Superintendent of
Police or any officer subordinate to them
shall compel the citizen in general to
deposit their fire arm unless there is an
order of the Central Government as
indicated in the body of the judgement.

(3) The decision made in the case of
Mohd. Arif Khan vs. District Magistrate
(supra) by the Division Bench of this
Court shall be followed by the State
Government and its officers posted in the
districts within the State of U.P.

18. In writ petition no. 26563 of 2000
Samim Abbas vs. District Magistrate,
Allahabad, copy of order dated 24.9.1996
passed by Hon. R.R.K. Trivedi, J. and in
writ petition no.18926/2000 Anil Kumar
Chaudhary
vs.
District
Magistrate,
Allahabad, copy of the order dated
21.4.2000 passed by Hon. R.H. Zaidi,
J.(Annexures 3 and 4 to the said petition)
directed that petitioners in those cases shall
not be compelled to deposit their fire arms
except under orders passed by their
Licensing authority in accordance with
law. In other words unless the licenced fire
arms
held
by
a
citizen
was
suspended/cancelled
by
specific
order
under law viz. Arms Act, he should not be
compelled to deposit the same with the
concerned police station or else where. Yet
there is another aspect of the matter. A
person holding a fire arm on the basis of
valid fire arm licence may have to go out
of his natural place of abode for so many
compelling reasons where there may not
be elections and he may be arm for his
personal security. In that contingency there
will be no justification for not allowing
him to possess his arm. Similar will be
position if one has to go with his family by
road on high ways.

19.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent commission also referred to the
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
126
case of A.C. Jose vs. Sivan Pillai and
others A.I.R. 1984 Supreme Court 921, I
do not find the said case to be an authority
for the purpose of the present case. In the
said case question regarding use of
mechanical process for casting votes in the
context of Article 324, Constitution of
India was considered. As also directed by
this Court in the case of Shamim Abbas
(supra) it shall be open to the concerned
authority under Arms Act, to regulate sale
and purchase of ammunition during such
period
like
elections
and
reasonable
restriction may be placed if necessary, on
purchase of aminition which may be
allowed by considering cases individually
considering the facts and circumstances of
each case independently.

20. In view of direct decisions of this
Court and the reasons given above there is
no need to quash letter dated 26.5.2000
issued by Additional Commissioner State
Election
Commission
U.P.
Lucknow
(Annexure III to the writ petition) as it
does not contain any direction for general
depositing of fire arms against the
provisions of Arms Act and to this extent
refuse to issue a writ of certiorari as
claimed in the writ petition.

21. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the respondents not
to
compel
the
citizens
within
their
respective jurisdiction to surrender/deposit
their fire arms provided they held valid
licence, without there being a specific
order passed by the competent statutory
authority under Arms Act merely on the
basis of the general order on the ground of
holding of panchayat elections.

22. The writ petition is allowed in
part as indicated above. There will be no
order as to cost.
23. This order shall govern all other
similar pending matters in this court and
shall be deemed to have been decided in
terms
of
the
orders
and
directions
mentioned above.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -81(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -81(
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$ -
7+( +21·%/( 6+,7/$ 3' 65,9$67$9$ -

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

0DKHQGUD 3UDVDG 7ULSDWKL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 9LFH &KDQFHOORU $OODKDEDG 8QLYHUVLW\
$OODKDEDG DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 3UDEKD 6KDQNDU 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6KUL $%/ *RXU

,QGLDQ (YLGHQFH $FW 6 (VWRSSHO
$SSOLFDELOLW\
+HOG SDUD
7KH IDFWV RI WKH SUHVHQW FDVH GR QRW VKRZ
WKDW
WKH
DSSHOODQW
ZDV
FRPSOHWHO\
LJQRUDQW RI WKH PLVWDNH LQ WKH PDUNVKHHW
LVVXHG WR KLP DQG WKDW KH QRQ ILGHO\
EHOLHYHG WKDW KH KDG VHFXUHG PDUNV
LQ WKH 0$ 3UHYLRXV H[DPLQDWLRQ DQG
DFWLQJ
XSRQ
VXFK
D
EHOLHI
KH
WRRN
DGPLVVLRQ DQG DSSHDUHG LQ 0$ )LQDO
H[DPLQDWLRQ
,W
DSSHDUV
WKDW
WKH
DSSHOODQW FRQVFLRXVO\ WRRN DGYDQWDJH RI
WKH ZURQJ PDUNVKHHW LVVXHG WR KLP DQG
SHUXVHG WKH FRXUVH RI VWXG\ 0$ )LQDO
FODVV
DQG
DOVR
DSSHDUHG
LQ
WKH
VDLG
H[DPLQDWLRQ :H DUH WKHUHIRUH RI WKH
RSLQLRQ WKDW RQ WKH IDFWV RI WKH SUHVHQW
FDVH WKH DSSHOODQW FDQQRW FRQWHQG WKDW
RQ WKH SULQFLSOH RI HVWRSSHO WKH XQLYHUVLW\
LV GHEDUUHG IURP SURFHHGLQJ RQ WKH EDVLV