JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri Sunil Kumar, holding brief of Shri Rajesh Yadav and Shri Daya Shanker for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner is a contractor in Nagar Palika Parishad, Mubarakpur, District Azamgarh. Due to his clean and honest activities and loyalties, many rival groups are keeping inimical inclinations towards him and as such he has a desperate need of gun licence for the protection of his life. It is also stated that the petitioner belongs to a responsible family and does not have any adverse record throughout his career. 3. The petitioner applied for grant of licence of a N.P. Bore Rifle on 17.2.2003. The application was sent to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh and the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh for their report. The Sub Divisional Magistrate submitted his report on 14.8.2006. During the pendency of the proceedings for grant of the licence, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 29163 of 2007, Mohd. Abdul Haq v. State of U.P. and others. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 4.7.2007, directing the District Magistrate to decide the application strictly in accordance with the law by a reasoned and speaking order afresh within four weeks. 4. By the impugned order dated 11.10.2007, Shri Vikash Gothalval, District Magistrate, Azamgarh has rejected the application on the ground that the application made by the petitioner; police report, and the Tehsildar’s report do not show the special requirement or actual requirement for the purposes of keeping the fire arm. He has relied upon Section 13 (3)(b) of the Arms Act, which provides for grant of fire arm licence “if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person, by whom the licence is required, has a good reason for obtaining the same.” 5. In substance, the District Magistrate has found that the petitioner has not given the requirement and justification for grant of the licence to possess the fire arm (N.P. Bore Rifle). 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the application form, for the fire arm licence is prescribed under Rule 51 of the Arms Rules. Under clause-12, the petitioner had filled the column by stating that he needs the licence for protection of his life (Atma Suraksha Hetu). 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the application form, for the fire arm licence is prescribed under Rule 51 of the Arms Rules. Under clause-12, the petitioner had filled the column by stating that he needs the licence for protection of his life (Atma Suraksha Hetu). He submits that there is no column in the application form for giving special need or actual need for grant of the fire arm licence. In case the District Magistrate was not satisfied, he could have given a show cause notice to the petitioner and asked him to give the details of the special need for possessing the fire arm. 7. The Arms Act provides for a procedure for grant of licence for the fire arm. If the licensing authority is satisfied under Section 13 (3)(c) of the Act that a person, who has applied for the licence, has good reason to obtain for the same, he may grant licence. In other case, the licensing authority may reject the application. The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate in such case cannot be put to any straight jacket formula. 8. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the State of U.P., lakhs of fire arms licences have been conceded by indiscriminate grant to the persons for asking, including those who have affiliations to political parties and also those who have long criminal records. The Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that the persons, possessing fire arm licences are displaying these fire arms openly in public places including schools, colleges, hospitals, Courts, railway platforms and other places which creates a sense of fear in the society. The possession of a fire arm has become a source of forced respect and acquisition of power in the society. 9. The licensing authorities have granted licences virtually to everyone who applies to them to possess the fire arm. The peaceful existence of the citizens in the society is threatened by such reckless executive action. It is often found that the licensing authorities are not exercising their powers for the purposes for which it is given to him. 10. A person may need a licence for his self defence or for the defence of his property. The nature of the job of the person may also require him to possess the fire arm. It is often found that the licensing authorities are not exercising their powers for the purposes for which it is given to him. 10. A person may need a licence for his self defence or for the defence of his property. The nature of the job of the person may also require him to possess the fire arm. In all such cases the facts, which constitute the special circumstances, are to be examined by the licensing authority. These circumstances need not be put to any objective test. There may be cases where a person may be the witness of a heinous/crime and is under threat or the nature of his occupation may require him to keep the fire arm. The licensing authority must also look into the back-ground and character of the person, and the type of fire arm required by such person before grant of licence. The fact, that a person is a contractor and alleges to have some unspecified enmity, is not a sufficient ground to grant fire arm licence. 11. The writ petition is dismissed with observations that the State Government shall issue necessary directions to all the licensing authorities to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Arms Act for grant of fire arm licences and make obligatory for all the licensing authority to give adequate and special reasons based on material on record for such grant or the renewal of existing licences. ————