JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20/10/2014 passed by respondent No. 2 refusing to renew license for use of a firearm for his self protection under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the order dated 21/10/2015 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat, by which the appeal preferred by the present petitioner challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Rajkot is confirmed, by dismissing the appeal. 2. Pursuant to the Rule issued by this Court, respondent authority has appeared through learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani, filed Affidavit-in-reply and opposed for granting any relief. 3. Brief facts, arise from the record, are as under:- "That the petitioner, who is a resident of Rajkot, made an application to the District Magistrate, Rajkot under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and requested to grant a licence of firearm in question for his self protection since he is doing a business of diamonds and agriculture. Therefore, the petitioner has to visit various places in the State of Gujarat for his business purpose such as collection of money, other agriculture related purposes, etc. The said application was allowed and the license was to expire on 31/12/2009. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same on 27/11/2009, which was renewed by respondent No. 2 till 31/12/2012 vide communication dated 28/05/2010. Thereafter, the licence was to get expired on 31/12/2012, the petitioner applied for renewal of the same on 24/12/2012 which came to be rejected by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20/10/2014. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat and the Deputy Secretary, after considering the material available on record and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21/10/2015 and confirmed the order dated 20/10/2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot. Hence, this petition." 4. Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the authority has refused to renew the licence on extraneous and irrelevant grounds. He would submit that the petitioner has produced sufficient material with regard to the ownership of land, etc. Hence, this petition." 4. Mr. Panam Soni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the authority has refused to renew the licence on extraneous and irrelevant grounds. He would submit that the petitioner has produced sufficient material with regard to the ownership of land, etc. He would further submit that the petitioner is mainly dealing with in different places in the State of Gujarat. He would further submit that the transactions for diamond business as well as agricultural produce are normally dealt with by cash and, therefore, the observations made by both the authorities cannot be treated as sufficient reasons for rejecting the application. 4.1 He would further submit that there are no antecedents against the present petitioner. He would submit that the District Magistrate has not opined that if the licence is issued to the petitioner, there would be imminent danger to public at large and, therefore, the authorities have committed grave error in rejecting the application. He would further submit that the authority can refuse to issue the licence, for which the reasons provided under Section - 14 of the Act. He would further submit on the contrary, in Sub-section - 2 of Section - 14 of the Act, it is made mandatory for the authority not to refuse to grant the licence to any common person merely on the ground that such person does not hold or possess such property. In the present case, he is having a land and doing business as referred herein above and, therefore, the reasons assigned by both the authorities below are arbitrary, unreasonable and not in accordance with law and therefore, the orders passed by both the authorities below are required to be quashed and set aside. 4.2 In support of his case, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Sohrab Jehangir Bamji V. State of Gujarat through Deputy Secretary & Anr. reported in 2011 (3) GCD 2621 (Guj), in case of Sweety Kumari @ Rekha V. State of Bihar of Patna High Court reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 79 and also relied upon unreported decision of this Court in case of Bhupatbhai Dahabhai Khachar V. Stated of Gujarat passed in Special Civil Application No. 10045 of 2013 dated 25.03.2014 and would submit that the petition be allowed and the orders passed by both the authorities below be quashed and set aside. 5. 5. On the other hand, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP, has opposed this petition and submitted that both the authorities below have not committed any error in passing the impugned orders. He would further submit that though the case put forward by the petitioner that he is dealing with crores of rupees, the income tax returns do not support the case of the petitioner. He would further submit that it is the case of the petitioner that he is dealing with the agricultural produce by cash transactions, however, nothing is produced in support of his application. Therefore, the authorities below have rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioner. He would further submit that it is the case of the petitioner that he is having huge agricultural land but the same is not only the ground, for which the petitioner can ask for license under the Arms Act. By taking me through the impugned orders, he would submit that the appellate authority has dealt with the case of the petitioner in detail and has come to the conclusions that there is no imminent requirement of the petitioner for licence. He would further submit that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India has issued guidelines on 31.03.2010 and has directed the concerned officer/s to follow the same before issuance of licence. He would further submit that the authorities below have followed the guidelines issued by the Union of India. He would further submit that under the said guidelines, it has been categorically observed that no licence be issued without police verification and report about the antecedent and threats under the Arms Act. In support of his case, he has relied upon an unreported decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. V. Mahipat Singh passed in Special Appeal No. 62 of 2014 dated 15.01.2014, wherein it has been held by the Division Bench that a person cannot ask for licence as a right and the authority has to consider the case considering the facts and circumstances put forward in the matter. He, therefore, submits that the petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard Mr. Soni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani for the respondent. He, therefore, submits that the petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard Mr. Soni, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Antani for the respondent. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is involved in business of diamond and agriculture, wherein a huge amount of cash is to be carried at various places in the State of Gujarat, for his business work such as for collection of money and other agricultural related purposes, etc. It is of a common knowledge that such transactions of agricultural produce do take place by cash transactions and therefore, in my opinion, I find substance in the say of the petitioner that he has to travel at different places by carrying cash with him. Therefore, the authority, without dealing with the important aspect, has rejected the application. 7. The relevant provisions of Sections - 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, read as under: "13. Grant of licences:- (1) An application for the grant of a licence under Chapter II shall be made to the licensing authority and shall be in such form, contain such particulars and be accompanied by such fee, if any, as may be prescribed. (2) On receipt of an application, the licensing authority shall call for the report of the officer in charge of the nearest police station on that application, and such officer shall send his report within the prescribed time. (2A) The licensing authority, after such inquiry, if any, as it may consider necessary, and after considering the report received under sub-section (2), shall, subject to the other provisions of this Chapter, by order in writing either grant the licence or refuse to grant the same: Provided that where the officer in charge of the nearest police station does not send his report on the application within the prescribed time, the licensing authority may, if it deems fit, make such order, after the expiry of the prescribed time, without further waiting for that report. (3) The licensing authority shall grant- (a) a licence under section 3 where the licence is required:- (i) by a citizen of India in respect of a smooth bore gun having a barrel of not less than twenty inches in length to be used for protection or sport or in respect of a muzzle loading gun to be used for bona fide crop protection: Provided that where having regard to the circumstances of any case, the licensing authority is satisfied that a muzzle loading gun will not be sufficient for crop protection, the licensing authority may grant a licence in respect of any other smooth bore gun as aforesaid for such protection; (ii) in respect of a point 22 bore rifle or an air rifle to be used for target practice by a member of a rifle club or rifle association licensed or recognized by the Central Government; (b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section5, section 6, section 10 or section 12, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. 14. Refusal of licences:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant:- (a) a licence under section 3, section 4or 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; (2) to be of unsound mind; (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; (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. (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. It is true that the licensing authority has to rely upon the police report while considering the application made by the individual for issuance of licence under Section - 13 of the Act. 9. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Mr. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced xerox copies of the opinion of the concerned Police Sub-Inspector, which were given in response to the demand for such report made by the office of District Magistrate while considering the application of renewal of arms licence of the petitioner in the years 2009 and 2012. On perusal of the opinion of the Police Sub-Inspector, Vinchiya Police Station of the year 2009, it appears that a negative opinion was given while considering ICR No. 44/2008. It was also mentioned in the opinion that the petitioner was apprehended and his arm confiscated in connection with the said offence. On inquiry about the reasons for the grant of renewal pursuant to such opinion, the learned Assistant Government Pleader on instruction, stated that the office of the District Magistrate took into consideration the fact that the arm, which was confiscated by the police was later released. In so far as the opinion given by the police authority in the year 2012 is concerned, the same is also in the negative and such negative opinion while taking into consideration, the very offence being ICR No. 44/2008 and others, in which, as per the petitioner, the same has been acquitted. In the circumstances when the District Magistrate while considering the very same offence had granted renewal in the year 2009, there could not have been any reason for rejection of renewal more particularly when there is acquittal of the petitioner in the said offences. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the circumstances when the District Magistrate while considering the very same offence had granted renewal in the year 2009, there could not have been any reason for rejection of renewal more particularly when there is acquittal of the petitioner in the said offences. 10. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot refusing to renew license for a firearm in question under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 as well as the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, State of Gujarat are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted. Petition Allowed.