JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.10.2002, passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad and the order dated 4.3.2003, passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in Appeal affirming the order passed by the District Magistrate refusing to grant Arm’s licence to the petitioner. 2. Inspite of the order dated 4.10.2006 passed by this Court, neither any counter affidavit has been filed by the State nor original application of petitioner has been produced before the Court. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The petitioner applied for grant of an Arms licence of D.B.B.L. Gun on 22.8.2001. The District Magistrate did not pass any order, hence petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 22881 of 2002. This Court by an order dated 24.5.2002 directed the District Magistrate, Allahabad to pass appropriate orders on petitioner’s application within six months and in compliance of the said order, the District Magistrate by an order dated 9.10.2002 rejected the application of petitioner for grant of Arms licence. An appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed on 4.3.2003. These two orders have been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. Duly considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 6. From perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that the District Magistrate while passing the order did not consider petitioner’s application alongwith the report of the Police authorities and other materials on record. 7. Section 14(2) of the Arms Act makes it clear that in case the licensing authority refuses to grant the licence, he shall record reasons in writing 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. 8. In the present case, no reasons have been recorded in the order of the District Magistrate. The order passed by the District Magistrate makes it clear that he admitted that Police authorities have submitted a report in favour of petitioner, but rejected the application of petitioner on the ground that application does not contain any reason for grant of Arm’s licence. 9. The order passed by the District Magistrate makes it clear that he admitted that Police authorities have submitted a report in favour of petitioner, but rejected the application of petitioner on the ground that application does not contain any reason for grant of Arm’s licence. 9. This Court on 4.10.2006 directed learned Standing Counsel to produce the original Application of petitioner, but neither original application was produced nor averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition were controverted by filing a counter affidavit. In the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the District Magistrate was duty bound to consider report submitted by the Police authorities alongwith Application of petitioner and other materials on record. Uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition are that petitioner is a reputed person and requires an Arm’s licence for safety of his life and security of his property. The Appellate authority in its order also mentioned that the petitioner is a businessman. It is also borne out from the uncontroverted averments made in the writ petition that petitioner has right to live with dignity and for protection against criminals and the antisocial elements of the area and, therefore, he requires an arm’s licence. These averments made in the writ petition have not been denied by the State by filing counter affidavit : The matter relates to the City of Allahabad, but the State did not care to challenge or controvert the averments made in the writ petition denying these facts and as such petitioner’s requirement of an Arm’s licence to protect his life and property is established. In the present scenario where life and property of the civilized citizens of the society is under threat from criminals and antisocial elements and the law and order situation prevailing in the State also makes out a case for grant of an Arms licence to the petitioner. 10. In view of the above, the order passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad refusing to grant Arm’s licence to the petitioner suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record and the order passed by the Appellate authority affirming the same was also passed without application of mind, though the Appellate authority mentioned in its order that the petitioner is a businessman and requires an Arms licence for protection of his life and property. 11. 11. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.10.2002 and 4.3.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad and the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Allahabad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment. No order as to cost. ———