Judgment Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. The question for consideration in this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is the validity of the orders passed by the respondents on the application of the petitioner for the grant of licence for a fire-arm, namely, a gun. 2. The petitioner who is a cultivator is a resident of village Pongadhi, in the district of Rohtas. His case is that he is a substantial and respectable cultivator in the locality and his house is situated on the outskirts of the village and attempts of commit dacoity in his house were made in the past by criminals two or three times. He has further said that although there are two licensed guns in his village, the licensees of those guns were inimically disposed towards him, and therefore, he does not expect to get any help in case of any need from them. 3. The petitioner applied for the grant of a licence for a D.B.B.L. Gun in the prescribed form (Annexure 1) to the licensing authority stating therein that he required the said fire-arm "for the safety of life and property". According to the practice, the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the local police for inquiry and report. According to the report dated 3C-4-1972 of the police "there is nothing against him in the police record. No objection if a licence is issued to him for Sasaram sub-division". The application of the petitioner was however rejected by the licensing authority, namely the Arms Magistrate, Sasaram (respondent No. 3). An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate of Rohtas, Sasaram (respondent No. 2), who by his order dated 3-9-1974 (Annexure 3) dismissed the same. Respondent No. 2 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that there was already two gun licensees in his village and there was no need for another licence. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna (respondent No. 1) and respondent No. 1 by his order dated 22-11-1974 (Annexure 4) dismissed the revisional application in limine, also observing thereunder that the petitioner was not able to make out a case before him. The petitioner has accordingly, filed the present application. 4. Mr. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna (respondent No. 1) and respondent No. 1 by his order dated 22-11-1974 (Annexure 4) dismissed the revisional application in limine, also observing thereunder that the petitioner was not able to make out a case before him. The petitioner has accordingly, filed the present application. 4. Mr. Jagdish Pandey, who appeared in support of this application, contended that the petitioner being a citizen of India was entitled to the grant of the licence under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the refusal of his prayer by the respondents was not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act inasmuch as the grounds given by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are foreign to the same. 5. It may be mentioned that earlier to the 1959 Act, the Indian Arms Act, 1978, was in force which was repealed by the present Act. According to the provisions contained in Section 3 of the present Act, one person can acquire, possess or carry any fire-arm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Section 13 of the Act prescribes the procedure for grant of licences. According to Sub-section (2) of this section, on receipt of an application for grant of a licence, the licensing authority after making such inquiry if any, as it may consider necessary, either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same. Sub-section (3) lays down that "the licensing authority shall grant (a) a licence under Section 3 where the licence is required- (i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection.... A licence under Section 3 in any other case has to be granted by the licensing authority, if it is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. As already said earlier the case of the petitioner as stated in this application, was that he required the licence for the protection of life and property. Section 14 of the Act lays down the various conditions under which, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant licence. As already said earlier the case of the petitioner as stated in this application, was that he required the licence for the protection of life and property. Section 14 of the Act lays down the various conditions under which, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant licence. He shall refuse a licence under Section 3 where such a licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition Section 14(1)(b) further lays down the ground for refusal of a licence in cases other than those coming under Chapter II. Although the present case is not a case covered by Chapter II, none the less, I may mention those conditions, and they are-- (i) if the licence is required by a person (1) who is prohibited by this Act or by any other law from acquiring possessing or carrying any fire-arm or ammunition, (2) is of unsound mind, and (3) is thought to be 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. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 prescribes that the licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. 6. Reading the relevant provisions relating to the grant and refusal of licence, it appears to me that if a citizen of India applies for grant of a smooth bore gun as described in Section 13(3)(a)(i) as stated above, for his protection, the licence has to be usually granted. Under Clause (b) of Sub- section (3) of Section 13, a licence under Section 3 in any other case has to be granted by the licensing authority only if it is satisfied that a person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. The licensing authority may refuse to grant a licence under Section 3 if such a licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition mentioned in Section 14(1), as already noticed above. The present case is not a case where the petitioner had applied for any such prohibited arm or prohibited ammunition or for a purpose other than that mentioned in Section 13(3)(a)(i). The present case is not a case where the petitioner had applied for any such prohibited arm or prohibited ammunition or for a purpose other than that mentioned in Section 13(3)(a)(i). It has, therefore to be examined as to whether the grounds on which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have refused the application of the petitioner for grant of a licence for a D.B.B.L. gun can be said to be justified and warranted. In this connection I refer to some of the authorities that were cited by Mr. Pandey in this regard. 7. In the case of State of U.P. v. Jaswant Singh Sarna. . the matter was considered by a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in some detail. The licensee in that case was an Arms dealer at Gorakhpur whose application for renewal of the licence was refused by the licensing authority. The learned judge who delivered the judgment for the bench, on a circumspection of the scheme of the Arms Act observed that the earlier Indian Arms Act, 1878, was enacted in an age when the British Government had, only some years, before quelled a massive uprising which threatened to remove British power from the country altogether and when considerations of military ascendancy and law and order were par amount in the consolidation of British rule in India. The order of things was completely changed when India attained independence and began to be governed under a Constitution which guaranteed to a free people a body of rights described as fundamental and the present Arms Act reflects the constitutional change, and a schematic analysis of the enactment demonstrates the contrasting liberalism so noticeably absent from the previous Act. Proceeding further, it was observed that the renewal of a licence can be refused only upon the grounds mentioned in Section 14. The Act recognises a right in a person to a licence. The grant of the licence is, subject to specified conditions, obligatory under Section 13. The refusal of a licence is controlled by the express limitations enumerated in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14. The order or refusal has been made subject to appellate scrutiny and the power of the licensing authority in respect of the grantor renewal of a licence is not left to the pay of administrative discretion. The refusal of a licence is controlled by the express limitations enumerated in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14. The order or refusal has been made subject to appellate scrutiny and the power of the licensing authority in respect of the grantor renewal of a licence is not left to the pay of administrative discretion. The limitations which hedge the exercise of the power to refuse a licence and the provision for appellate examination of the exercise of the power postulate the play o objective considerations. The Act is plaintly a regulatory measure intended to regulate the right of a citizen to hold, acquire and dispose of firearms and ammunition. 8. In the case of Dr. Hart Singh Harnam Singh Khalsa v. E.F. Deboo and Anr. A.I.R 1969 Guj. 349 a learned single Judge also took a somewhat similar view and held that the discretion which is vested in the licensing authority to refuse a licence cannot be interpreted to be an arbitrary discretion. Yet another learned single Judge in the case of K. S. Abdullah v. District Collector and Ors. A.I.R. 1972. Ker. 202. observed that the statutory requirement under Section 14(3) is that the licensing authority shall record in writing the reasons for refusal and it was necessary that it should apply its mind and satisfy itself op the question as to whether the security of public peace or public safety demanded a refusal of the licence. If the records prove otherwise, the order of refusal must be quashed. The order or refusal in the present case for a licence for a pistol was on the ground that the Government deemed it necessa ry for public safety to refuse grant of licence, without saying anything else. 9. Coming to the case before us, on a consideration of the provisions contained in Sections 13 and 14 of the Act its scheme in general as well as the authorities referred to above, the ground or refusal given by respondent No. 2 that no licence should be granted to the petitioner because there were two other licensees in the village does not appear to me as a ground germane to the refusal of the licence to the petitioner. No adverse remark was made against the petitioners application in the local enquiry; rather his case was recommended. No adverse remark was made against the petitioners application in the local enquiry; rather his case was recommended. In this view of the matter, I shall quash the orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contained in Annexures 4 and 3 respectively and send back the matter to the Arms Magistrate (respondent No. 3) for consideration of the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and pass a fresh order. I n the circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs. The application is accordingly allowed. M.P. Singh, J. 10 I agree.