JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who applied for grant of fire arm licence under the Arms Act was denied by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate. Banda, and the reason assigned is that the petitioner has not been able to produce the documents showing that he is a contractor of P.W.D. The City Magistrate has also submitted in his report that there is no apprehension of life and property of the petitioner. The Licensing Authority has further stated that it appears that the applicant only wants to possess a firm arm for his status, the district Banda is sensitive area from crime point of view and, therefore, the licence should be granted only when it is necessary. The Licensing Authority has further stated that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he has genuine necessity of holding a fire arm. Therefore, the Licensing Authority rejected the application of the petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.1994 passed by the Licensing Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi. The appeal has also been rejected by the appellate authority.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the licence of fire arm can be granted under the provision of Section 13 of the Arms Act and there is nothing in the order passed by the Licensing Authority or by the appellate authority to show that the petitioner is not a person to whom fire arm should not be granted. Section 14 provides grounds for refusal of licence. Section 14(1)(b) says that the licence shall be refused (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe that (1) prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound' mind, or (3) to by any reason unfit for a licence under this Act, or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence.
4. A perusal of the orders of the licensing authority and the appellate authority clearly demonstrate that the refusal is not covered by any of the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) or 14(2). In this view of the matter, refusal of the fire arm licence passed by the respondents is wholly arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution and against the scheme of Arms Act. In this view of the matter, the order dated 3.2.1994 passed by the District Magistrate, Banda, and the order dated 10.10.1995 passed by the appellate authority Commissioner. Jhansi Division, Jhansi, deserves to be quashed.
5. In view of what has been stated above and other reasons stated above, the orders dated 3.2.1994 and 10.10.1995 passed by District Magistrate. Banda and the appellate authority are quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue a fire-arm licence to the petitioner, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible in law for holding a fire-arm. There will be no order as to costs.