ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Petitioner no. 1 applied for grant of Arm licence but the District Magistrate, Saran, rejected the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 on the ground that there was no threat of life of the petitioner no. 1 and he also suppressed some material fact in his application. The petitioner no.1 challenged the order of the District Magistrate, Saran, before the Commissioner Saran at Chapra in Arms Appeal No. 61 of 2009 but the appellate court affirmed the order dated 10.5.2005 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran in Arms Case No. 36 of 2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran in Arms Case No. 36 of 2009 as well as order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the Commissioner Saran Division Chapra in Arms Appeal No. 61 of 2009, petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for quashing the order dated 18.05.2010 passed in Arms Appeal No. 61 of 2009 and by filing I.A. No. 8375 of 2004, petitioner also prayed for quashing the order dated 10.5.2009 passed by the District magistrate, Saran in Arms Case No. 36 of 2009. Furthermore, petitioner prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant arm licence to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the concerned officer in-charge highly recommended for grant of licence to the petitioner no. 1 and the Superintendent of Police, Saran also did not raise any objection in respect of grant of licence to the petitioner, but the District Magistrate, Saran rejected the petition of the petitioner no.1 on flimsy ground which has not been recognized under the Arms Act 1959 in Section 14 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for grant of licence can only be refused on the ground which have been mentioned in Section 14 of the Arms Act 1959, but provision of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 do not recognize the grounds given by the District Magistrate, Saran in his order dated 10.5.2010. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned orders arguing that admittedly, petitioner no. 1 had applied for grant of licence but he, knowingly, left the column no. 10-C of his application blank. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned orders arguing that admittedly, petitioner no. 1 had applied for grant of licence but he, knowingly, left the column no. 10-C of his application blank. Learned counsel for the State further submits that column No. 10-C of application puts a duty and obligation upon the applicant to disclose the fact as to whether any member of his family have arms in his possession or not and admittedly, petitioner no. 2, who happens to be father of petitioner no. 1, was in possession of licence of double barrel gun at the time of consideration of grant of Arms licence to the petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel for the State further submits that admittedly, petitioner no. 1 is in service in abroad and he often visits to his native place and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, there is no threat to his life and he is not in need of any arms. 6. Having heard the contentions of both the parties and having gone through the material on record, I find that section 30 of the Arms Act 1959, prescribes the condition in which the licence under Arms Act 1959 can be issued to a person and similarly, Section 14 of Arms Act 1959, prescribes the conditions in which the grant of Arms licence can be refused. Admittedly, the reasons cited by the District Magistrate, Saran in his order dated 10.5.2009 do not come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959. 7. No doubt, petitioner no. 1 left column no. 10-C of his application blank but the concerned officer in-charge in his report dated 19.7.2006 clearly stated this fact that the father of the petitioner was in possession of N.P. bore rifle. Moreover, Section 14 of the Arms Act 1959 does not give right to the licensing authority to reject the application on the ground of suppression of some facts and, therefore, even if the petitioner no. 1 had left some column of his application blank, it was duty of the licensing authority to give opportunity to the petitioner to remove the defect from his application. Therefore, in my view, the impugned orders dated 10.5.2009 as well as 18.5.2010 passed in Arms Case No. 36 of 2009 and Arms Appeal No. 61 of 2009 respectively cannot stand in the eye of law. Therefore, in my view, the impugned orders dated 10.5.2009 as well as 18.5.2010 passed in Arms Case No. 36 of 2009 and Arms Appeal No. 61 of 2009 respectively cannot stand in the eye of law. Accordingly, the above stated orders are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Saran to pass afresh order in Arms Case No. 36 of 2009 in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.