JUDGMENT Honble B.K. Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). 3. It has been stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for grant of licence under the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the respondent No. 2 in the year 2002. On receipt of the petitioner’s application the licensing authority called for the report of officer-in-charge of the police station Cantt. District Shahjahanpur. The officer-in-charge submitted his report before the respondent No. 2 recommending grant of licence to the petitioner. However, respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 17.10.2006 rejected the petitioner’s application for grant of fire arm licence on the grounds inter-alia that he had no enemies, there was no special requirement of the petitioner to possess a fire arm licence and that his need was not genuine. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse to grant licence have been laid down in Section 14 of the Arms Act and the licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons which in view of Section 14 of the Arms Act could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section and since respondent No. 2 has refused to grant fire arm licence to the petitioner on grounds which are not enumerated in Section 14 of the Act, the order rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of licence is not sustainable at all. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Khelawan v. State, AIR 1982 All 283 . 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondent No. 2 has given cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of fire arm licence and the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 7. 6. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 7. Section 14 of the Arms Act which enumerates the grounds on which the licensing authority can refuse the grant of licence reads as under : "(1) Notwithstanding 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. (2) The licensing authority shall not refuse to grant any licence to any person merely on the ground that such person does not own or possess sufficient property. (3) 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." 8. This Court in the case of Ram Khelawan Misra (supra) considered the grounds on which the licensing authority could refuse the licence under the Arms Act and held as under : “A rifle not being a smooth bore gun when a person seeks a licence for the former the licensing authority has to be satisfied that he has a good reason to obtain it. Section 14 lays down grounds for refusal of the licence. The licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons, which in view of Section 14, could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section. Refusal on a ground not found in that provision would be illegal.” 9. Section 14 lays down grounds for refusal of the licence. The licensing authority refusing the licence is bound to give reasons, which in view of Section 14, could only be any one or more of those enumerated in that section. Refusal on a ground not found in that provision would be illegal.” 9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the grounds on which the respondent No. 2 has refused the licence to the petitioner are that he had no enemies, that there was no special requirement of petitioner to possess a fire arm licence and that his need was not genuine. The reasons given in the impugned order for refusing the licence to the petitioner are not covered by any of the grounds given in Section 14 of the Act on which the licence may be refused. In my opinion the respondent No. 2 failed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of fire arm licence keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Act and rejected the petitioner’s application arbitrarily which has rendered his order totally unsustainable. 10. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated 17.10.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. Respondent No. 2 is directed to re-consider the petitioner’s application for grant of fire arm licence strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act by a speaking and reasoned order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order before him. ————