JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner had, in the year 1996, applied for grant of an arms licence. Earlier his village fell in district Bhadohi and thus the application was moved before the District Magistrate, Bhadohi. However, subsequently the village of the petitioner was merged in district Jaunpur. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur then sought a report from the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, on the basis of which his application was rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed on 3.6.1999 and the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate, Jaunpur to reconsider his application. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur again rejected the application of the petitioner on the same grounds. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on 3.5.2000. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 34013 of 2000 which was ultimately allowed on 5.5.2003. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case filed against him in the year 1986 and several years had passed since then and that his application had been rejected merely on the ground that the petitioner is a person of criminal tendency, this Court directed the District Magistrate., Jaunpur to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order, after taking the acquittal of the petitioner in case crime No. 100 of 1996 into consideration. Pursuant thereto, the application of the petitioner was reconsidered and by order dated 24.6.2003, the District Magistrate, Jaunpur has again rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for quashing the order dated 24.6.2003 and directing respondent No. 2 to grant arms licence to the petitioner.
2. I have heard Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parries, this writ petition is being-disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. By the impugned order the District Magistrate, Jaunpur has in fact only given the history of the case as to when the application of the petitioner was earlier rejected and thereafter directions were issued by the Commissioner and the High Court, etc. On merits the District Magistrate has considered the application only in the last paragraph by merely stating that the report of the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur had been called for wherein it has been stated that the petitioner is a short tempered person and that it cannot be said that he will not misuse the arms licence, is grated. Relying on the said report, the District Magistrate rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence. Copy of such report has not been filed by the respondents in their counter affidavit.
4. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is involved in any criminal case. It is also not the case of the respondents that after 1986 (which is nearly two decades back) the petitioner was ever involved in any case and in the criminal case registered against him in 1986, the petitioner has already been acquitted, which fact has not even been considered by the District Magistrate although so directed by this Court. Even presuming that a person is short tempered by nature, it would be wrong for the authorities to arrive at a conclusion that merely because of this he would misuse the arms licence, if granted.
5. A citizen is entitled to grant of arms licence, which can be rejected only for sufficient reasons to be recorded. In the present case, the petitioner has been denied arms licence repeatedly without assigning any adequate reason. Denial of arms licence cannot be at the .whims and fancies of the official concerned but can only be done for cogent and definite reasons. In the present case I find no sufficient reason recorded by the District Magistrate for denying licence to the petitioner, who has been made to repeatedly approach this Court and despite directions of this Court to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view his acquittal in the criminal case, the same has not been done.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my view, the order refusing to grant licence of the petitioner is without sufficient reason and is liable to be quashed. The District Magistrate, Jaunpur is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove and to pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before him.
7. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above and the order dated 24.6.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur, respondent No. 3 is quashed.
8. No costs.