Judgment :- 1. In these two contempt applications the pleadings being common and parties are the same, these are heard together and the following common order is passed. The applicant is complaining of non-compliance of the order of this Court by respondent No. 1, inter alia alleging that there is wilful disobedience. 2. This Court in W.RNos.16408 of 1995 and 16388 of 1995 directed respondent No. 1 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of N.B.Bore pistol licence in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard. While setting aside the order on the ground that it was not a speaking order, also noticed the non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of Secs.13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’), and directed to consider the application in compliance with the said provisions. But, no time-limit was fixed in the order for disposal of the application, however that does not mean that the authority can take unduly long period to comply with the order of this Court. 3. At paras.4,5 and 6 of the petitioner, there are allegations that respondent No. 1 has chosen to delay the matter and is not interested in passing appropriate orders and this wilfully and deliberately violated the orders of this Court in W.P.No.16408 of 1995. 4. Respondent No.1 at para.9 of the counter has stated that as per the provisions of Sec.13(ii) of the Act, a report from the local police officers was called for and the report stated that he had gone to Canada and later representation dated 30.6.1997 was received from his Advocate informing that the petitioner was waiving the opportunity of being heard and another verification was not necessary. However, the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of being heard and he appeared on 28.7.1997, made his representations and an order was passed on 16.2.1997, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already been granted licence to possess one N.B. Bore Rifle for sports purpose and another N.B. Bore pistol for self-protection and it was not necessary to arm with another weapon for sports purpose. Referring to the instructions of the Central Government in Letter No.12126/ Pol.XIV/89-4, dated 13.7.1989 and observing, “that the licensing authority has to follow the strictest possible control over the issue of fresh licenses (or for renewing the existing ones). Referring to the instructions of the Central Government in Letter No.12126/ Pol.XIV/89-4, dated 13.7.1989 and observing, “that the licensing authority has to follow the strictest possible control over the issue of fresh licenses (or for renewing the existing ones). The need for possession of weapon by the applicant should be gone into meticulously and judiciously both at the stage of issue for fresh licence and then again when it comes up for renewal”, the respondent No.l declined to grant licence for third weapon. 5. Where the authority refuses or neglects to do an act required by a judgment or order of the court, wilfully, it amounts to disobedience. It is only wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order or writ or other process of the Court which tends to interfere with or tends to obstruct the course of justice in any manner, that amounts to contempt. 6. Secs.13 and 14 of the Act refers to provisions relating to grant and refusal of licenses, where the licensing authority refuses to grant a licence to any person it shall record in writing the reasons for such refusal and furnish to that person on demand a brief statement of the same unless in any case the licensing authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the public interest to furnish such statement. 7. In this fact situation, when there is not time-limit fixed by the Court for disposal of the application and when respondent No. 1 has passed an order, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to have recourse to other remedies and it cannot be said that there is wilful disobedience. In this jurisdiction, this Court need not examine the validity of the order. What has to be looked into is whether the authority failed to comply with the order to consider the application in the manner required by law. 8. Consideration does not always imply grant. The authority can even assign reasons and show how they have considered and why the party is not entitled. If the reasoning is bad, that aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in a contempt proceeding. It may give rise to a fresh cause of action to assail the validity of the order but cannot be construed as an act of wilful disobedience, of the order of this Court. 9. If the reasoning is bad, that aspect of the matter cannot be gone into in a contempt proceeding. It may give rise to a fresh cause of action to assail the validity of the order but cannot be construed as an act of wilful disobedience, of the order of this Court. 9. Therefore, I see no merit in the contempt ap-plications complaining disobedience to the orders of this Court and the same are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed.