JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Shyam Krishan, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri A. K. Singh, learned Advocate who appeared as State Counsel. 2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the licensing authority dated 29.11.2006 by which petitioner’s application for grant of fire arm licence has been rejected. 3. After hearing learned Counsel for both sides this Court is of the view that keeping the matter pending by calling the respondents to file response may be futile exercise and as there is no dispute about the facts, by noticing them in brief the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of. 4. Petitioner applied for grant of fire arm licence showing his need i.e. personal safety and the safety of his property as petitioner claims to be an agriculturist. On moving the application in the prescribed proforma petitioner deposited the National Saving Certificate also of Rs. 5,000/- and he also filed other required documents. Report from Tehsil authorities in respect to his status and need etc. was called upon which the Tehsildar, the Sub Divisional Officer and the Supervisor Kanoongo all recommended for grant of licence. The police authorities, as required under Section 13(2) of the Arms Act gave a report that petitioner is not to be issued the arm licence as a N.C.R. No. 5 of 2006 under Section 504, 506, IPC has been registered against him. On getting the report the matter was placed before the licensing authority with the report of the Arms Clerk dated 29.11.2006. On that very date O.C. (Arms) also made his endorsement that in view of the report of the Superintendent of Police dated 24.11.2006 the licence may not be granted. The licensing authority in its turn on 29.11.2006 itself by putting his seal by one word order “rejected”, refused to grant licence and thus petitioner has to come up to this Court. 5. The licensing authority in its turn on 29.11.2006 itself by putting his seal by one word order “rejected”, refused to grant licence and thus petitioner has to come up to this Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the licensing authority refusing to grant licence cannot be said to be a valid exercise inasmuch there is complete non-application of mind to the facts and situation and the ground on which petitions wanted to get licence and in fact the licensing authority in a whimsical and arbitrary manner, instead of applying his own mind and discretion, simply dittoed the report of the arms clerk and the O. C. (Arms). Lastly it is submitted that the only ground on which the police has not recommended for grant of licence is a N.C.R. under Sections 504, 506 IPC which may not be a valid ground/impediment for not granting the licence to the petitioner and in any view of the matter in respect to that the report/complaint a compromise was already filed in the concerned police station which was also placed before the licensing authority to the information of the petitioner but without considering all these aspects in a mechanical manner the impugned order has been passed and thus, this being the situation, there being no dispute about the fact petitioner is not to be relegated to the alternative forum of approaching the appellate authority as it has been repeatedly said by the Apex Court and by this Court also that in appropriate cases availability of the alternative remedy may not come in the way of the petitioner to get the relief from this Court. It is on this premises submission is that this Court is to intervene. 6. Sri Singh, learned State Counsel in opposition thereof submits that as police Personnel has not recommended for grant of arm licence, that was a valid ground for the licensing authority for rejecting the petitioner’s application. Sri Singh submits that although the recommendation of the Tehsil authorities in respect to the status and need of the petitioner favours him but as Section 13 (2) of the Arms Act permits the consideration of the report of the police personnel and, therefore, if there is no recommendation in favour of the petitioner and his application has been rejected, then no exception can be taken to it. Lastly it has been submitted that petitioner can take recourse of the alternative forum of filing the appeal against the impugned order and, therefore, this may not be a fit case for interference. 7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has given serious thought over the matter and in .the light of the facts so noticed, this Court is to finally dispose of this writ petition. 8. At the very out set this Court can safely say that availability of the alternative remedy has been repeatedly said to be not a absolute bar for filing the writ petition to get relief from this Hon’ble Court and, therefore, it being a case where there is no dispute about the facts and the order of the licensing authority is totally non-speaking and it speaks of no application of his mind, this Court is not to permit the argument of Sri Singh to prevail for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and thus the writ petition is to be disposed of on the merits. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has a good status and Tehsil authorities have recommended about the status/respect of the petitioner in the society and having good agricultural land to be entitled to get arm licence, in view of the need so explained by him. There is further no dispute about the fact that local police has not stated about any bad repute of the petitioner and his involvement in any criminal case which may be said to be of serious nature and that too affecting the law and order. Only which ground has been stated by the local police is that a N.C.R. under Section 504, 506, IPC has been registered against the petitioner about which also petitioner has taken the stand that compromise has already been filed between the parties, copy of which has also been annexed before this Court. Only which ground has been stated by the local police is that a N.C.R. under Section 504, 506, IPC has been registered against the petitioner about which also petitioner has taken the stand that compromise has already been filed between the parties, copy of which has also been annexed before this Court. Needless to say that it has been repeatedly said that pendency of a criminal case may not be a ground for cancellation of the fire arm licence and thus the same principle can be safely applied while considering the claim for grant of fire arm licence and thus this being the situation that the report registered against the petitioner happens to be a N.C.R. which is said to have been comprised also may not be said to be a valid ground for refusal to grant of fire arm licence. 10. On a consideration of the aforesaid this Court has to analyse the manner in which the licensing authority is to consider the application for grant/refusal of arm licence as provided under Section 13 of the Arms Act. The provisions in this respect clearly states that the licensing authority after such enquiry and after considering the report received under sub-section (2) of Section 13 subject to provisions of this chapter by order in writing either grant licence or refuse to grant the same. The powers so conferred on the licensing authority has to be exercised on a subjective satisfaction of the facts and materials so placed before him. The power so conferred on the licensing authority cannot be permitted to be exercised in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. Here is the case whereafter the report from the police personnel Arms Clerk has placed the matter before the licensing authority on 29.11.2006 just by placing his note. Taking note of that report/note of the Arms Clerk the O/C Arms also gave his report on 29.11.2006 itself and on that very date without assigning any reason just in one word ÞvLohÑrÞ the licensing authority rejected the petitioner’s application. This appears to be totally arbitrary and that clearly indicates the total non-application of mind to the claim of the petitioner which is to be disposed of on valid considerations. This appears to be totally arbitrary and that clearly indicates the total non-application of mind to the claim of the petitioner which is to be disposed of on valid considerations. Needless to say that mind of a Court/authority can only be ascertained from the reasons so indicated/given in the order and thus for accepting/rejecting the claim of a claimant and at the same time for accepting/rejecting the reports/evidence in support/against any issue, an authority/Court must assign reasons at least in brief. As the licensing authority has not applied its mind to the claim of the petitioner and his application has been rejected in a mechanical manner, this Court is to intervene instead of relegating the petitioner to approach the alternative forum. 11. While taking this view, this Court will have to make it clear that henceforth the licensing authority while disposing the application for grant of fire arm licence after getting the required report will have to apply his own independent mind/discretion in the matter irrespective of recommendation/no recommendation. The licensing authority has to scrutinize the need of the applicant and then he is to take independent decision. It is not to be emphasized that the report which is submitted to the licensing authority for grant/refusal of the fire arm licence is for his guidance and for information about antecedents if any of applicant and his status and need and in no case it can be said to be binding on the licensing authority and, therefore, it is always open for the licensing authority to agree/disagree from the report/recommendation so obtained by him after assigning valid/cogent reasons and thus the licensing authority has to take care of the foresaid before deciding the matter finally. 12. For the reasons given above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the licensing authority dated 29.11.2006 refusing to grant licence to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The licensing authority is called upon to take fresh decision in respect to claim of the petitioner preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after giving his fresh thought over the matter in the light of the record so to be .placed/available before him. 13. The licensing authority is called upon to take fresh decision in respect to claim of the petitioner preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order after giving his fresh thought over the matter in the light of the record so to be .placed/available before him. 13. Certified copy of this order will be made available to the learned Standing Counsel without payment of any charge so as to be placed before the learned Chief Standing Counsel for being sent to the concerned Secretary/Department for being sent -to all the licensing authorities to ensure the compliance of this order while dealing with such cases. ————