JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner applied for grant of arms licence on 19.1:2000. A Police report was submit led on 13.3.2000 in favour of the petitioner. However, since despite such report, the District Magistrate did not pass any order on the said application of the petitioner, the petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 40583 of 2001 with a prayer for a direction to the District Magistrate to grant him the arms licence. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4.12.2001 with the direction that the application of the petitioner may be decided within three months Thereafter, the District Magistrate, vide order dated 13.5.2002, rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of arms licence. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad vide his order dated 7.7.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 13.5.2002 and 7.7.2003 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A further payer has also been made that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate, to grant arms licence to the petitioner.
2. I have heard Sri J. P. 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 parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
3. The only ground on which the application for grant of arms licence of the petitioner has been rejected is that he has not stated in his application that there is any threat to his life and that the Column No. 17 of the application (which is with regard to any special circumstances for which arms licence is required), has been left blank by the applicant. The appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected On similar ground.
4. In both the orders, it has been noted that although the police has submitted his report in favour of the petitioner, but it has been mentioned there in that there has been no case of dacoity, loot or murder etc. reported to have occurred in the case in the property or family of the petitioner.
5. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is a person of criminal antecedents. It is also not their case that the petitioner is likely to misuse* his arms licence. Merely because there has never been a case of dacoity, loot or murder in the house of the petitioner, the respondents cannot refuse to grant arms licence to such person. Possessing an arms licence is right of every citizen, unless for certain reasons enumerated in the Arms Act, he would be prohibited from possessing the same.
6. In the present case, the police report as well as the report of the Tahsil authorities, are both in favour of the petitioner. The grounds on which the application for grant of arms licence of the petitioner has been rejected are not tenable in law. The appeal has also been rejected on baseless grounds. Accordingly, the orders dated 13.5.2002 and 7.7.2003 passed by respondents No. 2 and 1 respectively impugned in this writ petition deserves to be quashed. "Since the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and there is no apprehension that he is likely to misuse the arms licence, the District Magistrate ought to have allowed his application.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.5.2002 and 7.7,2003 are quashed. The District Magistrate is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the observations made hereinabove, and pass appropriate orders within one month of the filing of a certified copy of this order before him. No costs.