HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2194 of 2025 (M/S) Hari Om Bhakuni ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, petitioner in person. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- 1- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned undated notice, issued by respondent no.3 (Annexure No.2.). 2- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioner to deposit the fire arm during Uttarakhand Panchayat Election, 2025. 3- Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4- Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a practising lawyer. He is aggrieved by notice given by the respondent no.3/Inspector Incharge, Kotwali Bageshwar, by which the petitioner has been required to deposit his firearms. 4. The petitioner-in-person submits that the firearm license has been given to him for his self defence; he is a practising Advocate; the impugned notice is not in accordance with law; there cannot be any blanket order for depositing firearms; the Election Commission of India had issued instructions in this regard on 01.09.2009, which has further been reiterated on 26.04.2022, which is Annexure No.3 to the 2 writ petition. He further submits that for the purpose of depositing of armed licenses, a Screening Committee has to be constituted in every District, and case to case basis, directions may be issued; in the District Bageshwar, no such Screening Committee has ever been constituted. 5. In support of his contention, the petitioner-in-person has relied upon the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Uma Kant Yadav Vs. State of U.P (Allahabad), passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14434 of 2007; and in the case of Rajendra Pratap Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, passed in Misc. Single No.8697 of 2019. 6. In the case of Uma Kant Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court passed the following directions:- “21. In view of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are being disposed of with the following directions; (i) The direction contained in the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 6-3-2007 to the Station House Officer for the deposit of the fire arms from the license holders is quashed. (ii) A mandamus is issued to the respondents and its authorities, including the Station House Officer, not to compel the petitioners and other license holders to deposit their fire arms unless, (a) A review and objective assessment is made in individual cases by the competent authority, as directed by the State Government in its order dated 11-2-2007 and (b) If it is found by the competent authority that there is a chance of the misuse of the weapon, an appropriate order in writing is required to be passed by the competent authority for deposit of the fire arms. (c) The order of the deposit of the weapon made by the competent authority in writing should be communicated to the license holder. (d) The directions contained aforesaid will apply not only for this election but for all elections.” 7. These principles have been followed in the case of Rajendra Pratap Singh (supra). 3 8. Learned State Counsel submits that the District Magistrate, Bageshwar, has passed orders for depositing firearms by the license holders for impartial and fair elections. 9. The petitioner has enclosed the guidelines of the Election Commission of India dated 26.04.2022, which, in fact, is in continuation of the earlier guidelines dated 01.09.2009, and pursuant to the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No.835 of 2009, Shri Govind Vs. Vikram Kumar, the DM, and Others. In that guidelines, it is stated that in earlier guidelines dated 01.09.2009, it was directed as follows:- • “to Constitute a Screening Committee in every district constituting of District Magistrate and the S.P. In the Commissionerate area, consisting of Commissioner of Police and Joint/Addl. Commissioner of Police. • The Screening committee shall commence the work of screening from the day of announcement of election and shall complete it as far as possible before the date of notification”...... 10. By the guidelines dated 26.04.2022, the Election Commission of India has directed that the above guidelines may be strictly followed. 11. Learned State counsel admits that no Screening Committee was constituted in the District Bageshwar, as commanded by the Election Commission of India. 12. Having considered, this Court is of the view that a blanket order for depositing firearms may not be termed as in accordance with law. Therefore, while quashing the impugned notice, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 13. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice, which is Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, is quashed. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 22.07.2025 Ravi Bisht