Judgment :- 1. On consent, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2. The writ petition is filed to set aside the order of the second respondent dated 08.12.2009 confirming the order of the first respondent dated 19.05.2007 in and under which the petitioners application for renewal of Gun licence is rejected and to further direct the first respondent to renew his Gun Licence No.40/2 S.B.B.I (Single Barrel Breach Load) 3. The petitioner was originally employed in Police Department and retired as Selection Grade Inspector of Police in the year 31.05.1998. During his tenure of service, he got S.B.B.L. Gun licence bearing No.40/2 and the same was periodically renewed and the last such renewal was by order dated 12.04.2000 for the period from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2002. Though the petitioner ought to have filed the petition for renewal of his Gun licence one month prior to the date of expiry of his gun license i.e. one month prior to 31.12.2002, the petitioner has admittedly filed his renewal application on 06.11.2003 along with challan dated 05.11.2003 for the payment of Rs.120/- representing Rs.60/-towards the regular charge for renewal and Rs.60/-towards the charges for making belated application. The renewal application was under process, the petitioner was by order dated 13.11.2003, directed to appear for personal enquiry before the office of the District Revenue Officer, Cuddalore along with the weapon and two passport size photographs. On that day he was instructed by the Officer concerned to hand over his weapon to Pudhunagar Police Station and thereafter, there was no progress till 2007. Thereafter, he was by order dated 05.04.2007, directed to appear for enquiry on 26.04.2007 and the petitioner has also duly appeared for enquiry before the District Revenue Officer and the personal hearing on 26.04.2007 is followed by the order dated 19.05.2007 passed by the first respondent thereby rejecting the petitioners gun licence on the following grounds; 1. the petitioners application for renewal is not filed within time. 2. the petitioner refused to give any statement in writing in the course of his enquiry before the District Revenue Officer. 3. the petitioner has not put forth any valid reason for seeking renewal and 4. the petitioners refusal to record any statement reveals his lack of interest in seeking the renewal. 4. 2. the petitioner refused to give any statement in writing in the course of his enquiry before the District Revenue Officer. 3. the petitioner has not put forth any valid reason for seeking renewal and 4. the petitioners refusal to record any statement reveals his lack of interest in seeking the renewal. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred his appeal before the Commissioner of Revenue Administration/second respondent and the Commissioner of Revenue Administration/second respondent by order dated 08.12.2009 rejected the petitioners appeal confirming the order of the first respondent on the ground that the application for renewal was made belatedly with out any sufficient reasons for the delay and the orders of the respondents 1 and 2 above referred to are under challenge in this writ petition. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order was passed without properly considering the reasons assigned by him for the delay in making the renewal application and without taking into account the additional payment made for the belated application as required under Rule 57 (2) (b) of the Arms Act. It is further contended that the order of rejection is not for any of the grounds as mentioned under Section 14 of the Arms Act and the reasons given in the order of rejection are germane and not relevant for considering request for renewal. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would seek to defend the impugned order on the grounds that the petitioner has violated the statutory provision by not surrendering the weapon within the time as contemplated under the Arms Act and that he failed to convince the authority that he is interested in having the renewal and he has not explained the delay in approaching the authority. 7. Heard the rival submissions made on either side. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners application for renewal is filed after 10 months and that the petitioner has in his original petition not adduced any reason for the delay but the petitioner has in the grounds of appeal filed before the second respondent explained in detail as to how and what circumstances the delay occurred. The petitioner has clearly explained that the petitioner was busy in arranging for the marriage of his daughter and in the midst of the same omitted to approach the authority for his gun licence renewal. The petitioner has clearly explained that the petitioner was busy in arranging for the marriage of his daughter and in the midst of the same omitted to approach the authority for his gun licence renewal. However, the reason so stated by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal enclosed at page No.8 of his type set are not at all referred to, considered and decided by the second respondent/ appellate authority in his final order. The first respondent/original authority has also not taken into consideration the late fee of Rs.60/-paid by the petitioner along with his renewal application. 9. Both the authorities have failed to consider that the petitioner has been issued the gun licence, while he was in service in the Police Department and the same was periodically renewed even after his retirement from the police service as early as on 1998 and the last such renewal was up to 2002. 10. Further the grounds on which, the first respondent rejected his application do not fall within any of the grounds set out in Section 14 of the Arms Act. The main ground on which the first respondent rejected the application is that the petitioner refused to record any statement in the course of personal enquiry before the first respondent, which is stoutly denied on the side of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner failed to assign any reason for seeking renewal belatedly after his last renewal which is proof of his lack of interest in getting it renewal. The fact that the petitioner sought for the renewal for further period along with the payment of late fee would to considerable extent go to show that the authority concerned has not properly approached the issue. Thus the first respondent has rejected the application for the reasons which are out side the scope of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Though the petitioner has raised serious grounds against the correctness of the order of rejection passed by the original authority in his appeal the second respondent has also simply confirmed the order of the first respondent on the ground that the application is belated and the delay is not sufficiently explained. The second respondent has not at all given any reason much less any valid reason to reject the petitioners application. The second respondent has not at all given any reason much less any valid reason to reject the petitioners application. The second respondent has without even discussing the reason for the delay arrived at the conclusion that the reason assigned therein does not constitute sufficient reason and such finding in my considered view suffers from total non application of mind. In short the reasons given for the rejection of the renewal application by the authorities concerned can not stand the test of reasonableness and are hence liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the second respondent dated 08.12.2009, confirming the order of the first respondent dated 19.05.2007 and consequently, first respondent is directed to renew the petitioners gun license as S.B.B.L. No.40/2 for further period as per law within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.