CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, as well as the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum Division, Belgaum. The petitioner applied for licence to possess a revolver to protect his life and property. He has stated that he owns agricultural lands and he is also a primary school teacher by profession and lives at chivatagundi village in Bailhongal Taluk. In his application he did not specify the bore or calibre of the weapon which he intended to possess in respect of which he sought the licence. The application is required to be made in form No. 1 prescribed under the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules ). ( 2 ) THAT application was processedby the Deputy Commissioner through the superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police submitted a report stating that the lands owned by the petitioner did not require protection of a weapon and that the profession practised by the petitioner did not also call for protection of his person by possessing a weapon of the description given in his application. Recording those reasons, the Deputy commissioner rejected the application. On appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, the Divisional Commissioner after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner distinguished certain case law cited before him and rejected the appeal concurring with the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner-District Magistrate. ( 3 ) IN this Court the learned Counselappearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that under Sec. 14 of the Act the licence cannot be refused except for the reasons stated under that section. I do not think the argument is well founded. Sec. 14 of the Act reads as follows :"14. Refusal of licences. ( 3 ) IN this Court the learned Counselappearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court that under Sec. 14 of the Act the licence cannot be refused except for the reasons stated under that section. I do not think the argument is well founded. Sec. 14 of the Act reads as follows :"14. Refusal of licences. (1) Not" withstanding anything in Section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant (a) a licence under Section 3, Section 4, or Section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition ; (b) a licence in any other case under chapter II, (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe (1) to be 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 be for 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. "the mandate is to refuse a licence if any one of those things mentioned appears to the licensing authority to be present in respect of any application. But Sec. 13 is the provision in the Act which deals with the grant of licences. Specifically in clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 13 of the Act, it provides that licence under any of the sections under which the licence may be given, may be so given only after the authority is satisfied that it is required by the person who applies for it. ( 4 ) IN this case, we know the reasonsfor which the petitioner applied for the possession of a fire arm namely, revolver, without specifying the calibre and in the investigation it was found that neither his person nor property required protection by fire arm. In other words, the Deputy commissioner in his order specified that it was not a case which warranted issuance of a licence. This Courl cannot substitute its opinion in place of the opinion formed by the licensing authority. In other words, the Deputy commissioner in his order specified that it was not a case which warranted issuance of a licence. This Courl cannot substitute its opinion in place of the opinion formed by the licensing authority. Where duty coupled with discretion has been properly exercised after gathering material by enquiry ordered through tha superintendent of Police and after obtaining the report and acting on such material and after hearing the Counsel for the party, I do not see any infirmity in the order of the District Magistrate or in the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner. ( 5 ) NO harm has come to the propertyor the person of the petitioner in these last eight years. ( 6 ) THE petition is misconceived andit is rejected. --- *** --- .