JUDGMENT : The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Arms Magistrate, Ranchi-the respondent no.2 and communicated to the petitioner vide memo no.115/Arms dated 7th February, 2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) whereby the application of the petitioner for issuance of arms licence has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to grant arms licence to the petitioner. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the present writ petition is that the petitioner is a builder running his business of construction in different districts of State of Jharkhand and for the said purpose he has to travel to remote places and in order to safeguard his family and property, he applied for an arms licence in statutory Form III (Form A) on 28th July, 2009 in respect of revolver/pistol before the licensing authority. Thereafter, the police officials of Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station, Ranchi visited the residence of the petitioner for enquiry regarding issuance of license of required arms, however, no action was taken in this regard. The petitioner visited the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police-the respondent no.3 and the respondent no.2 to know about the progress of his application where he came to know that vide memo no.2606/09 dated 24th August, 2009 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the Officer-in-Charge, Sukhdeo Nagar Police Station, Ranchi had forwarded his recommendation for issuance of arms licence in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also came to know that the Superintendent of Police (City), Ranchi, vide memo no.99 dated 13th October, 2009, had also forwarded his recommendation to the respondent no.2 for issuance of arms license in respect of required arms. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to provide requisite information regarding further progress of his application of arms licence by filing representations dated 17th November, 2018 and 14th December, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to provide requisite information regarding further progress of his application of arms licence by filing representations dated 17th November, 2018 and 14th December, 2018. However, the respondent no.2 neither replied the representation of the petitioner nor granted arms licence to the petitioner and as such he preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.642 of 2019 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th September, 2019 directing the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s application for grant of an arms licence, unless already decided, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by taking a decision in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh application for grant of arms licence in respect of revolver/pistol on 21st October, 2019 as also filed application dated 23rd October, 2019 before the respondent no.2 enclosing a copy of order dated 27th September, 2019 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, however, nothing was done. Again a reminder vide letter dated 3rd January, 2020 was filed before the respondent no.2, however, the same remained un-responded. Hence, the petitioner filed a Contempt Case (Civil) No.107 of 2020 before this Court and thereafter the respondent-authority sent a letter to the petitioner vide memo no.115 dated 7th February, 2020 mentioning inter alia that his application for grant of arms licence stood rejected in view of the report submitted by the respondent no.3 vide letter no.374/Go.(L) dated 21st October, 2019. The petitioner has come to know that the respondent no.3 had mentioned in his report that there was no immediate danger to the life and property of the petitioner as such no recommendation could be made for issuance of arms license. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act, 1959’) illustrates the ground on which the respondent authority is empowered to refuse the grant of arms license. None of the grounds empowers the respondent authority to reject the application for grant of arms licence even if there is no immediate danger of life and property of the applicant. None of the grounds empowers the respondent authority to reject the application for grant of arms licence even if there is no immediate danger of life and property of the applicant. The respondent no.2 has rejected the application of the petitioner without any application of mind and taking into consideration the statutory provision provided for refusal of an arms licence and as such the same is illegal and arbitrary, and deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to go to several remote places in the State of Jharkhand regularly for business purpose to have supervision of his work. During regular visit to his site offices, he has met many unseen events causing threat to his life and property. It is also submitted that in the year 2000, some anti-social elements of an extremist organization burnt the ancestral house of the petitioner situated at village “Oppa” in the district of Lohardaga. Due to such unseen events and considering the threat to his life and property, the petitioner made an application for issuing an arms license of revolver/pistol, however, the respondent no.2 has rejected his application arbitrarily without considering the said aspects. The respondent no.2 was also duty bound to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after receipt of report of the respondent no.3. The respondent-authorities cannot be permitted to traverse the statutory provisions and to consider the non-est ground of having no immediate danger to life and property of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent no.3 submitted a report vide letter no.374/Go.(L) dated 21st October, 2019 stating that there was no immediate danger and threat to the life and property of the petitioner, on the basis of which the respondent no. 2 has rejected the petitioner’s application as per rules 12 (2) (e) and 12 (3) (a) of the Arms Rules, 2016. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner filed an application before the respondent no.2 for grant of licence for possessing revolver/pistol, however, his application has been rejected by the respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 7th February, 2020 primarily on the ground that there is no immediate threat or danger to the life and property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the respondent no.2 for grant of licence for possessing revolver/pistol, however, his application has been rejected by the respondent no.2 vide impugned order dated 7th February, 2020 primarily on the ground that there is no immediate threat or danger to the life and property of the petitioner. Hence, the short question which falls for consideration of this Court is as to whether for grant of licence of arms or ammunition, there must be some danger to the life and property of the applicant. 6. Before coming to the said issue, it would be appropriate to go through the different provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 which deal with the grant of licence for carrying and possessing arms by any person. Section 3 of the Act, 1959 specifically deals with licence for acquisition and possession of fire-arms and ammunition which provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any fire-arm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 7 of the said Act provides for prohibition for acquisition or possession, or of manufacture or sale, of prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition by any person unless he has been specially authorized by the Central Government in this behalf. Section 9 of the said Act speaks of prohibition of acquisition or possession by, or of sale or transfer of fire-arms to a person who has not completed the age of twenty one years or a person who has been sentenced on conviction of any offence involving violence or moral turpitude to imprisonment for any term at any time during a period of five years after the expiration of the sentence, or who has been ordered to execute a bond under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for keeping the peace or for good behavior, at any time during the term of the bond. Section 13 of the said Act delineates the procedures to be followed for grant of licences. Section 13 of the said Act delineates the procedures to be followed for grant of licences. It describes that if an application for grant of arms licence is submitted to the licensing authority, a report shall be called from the nearest police station and thereafter taking into consideration of the police report, other related provisions of the said Act as well as the facts brought on the enquiry if any conducted by the licensing authority, the decision for granting licence shall be taken. Section 13 (3) (b) of the said Act provides that any licence under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 or 12 of the Act is to be granted, if the licensing authority is satisfied that the person by whom the licence is required has a good reason for obtaining the same. 7. Further, Section 14 of the Act, 1959 provides the grounds on which an application for grant of licence may be rejected. The said provision is quoted hereunder :- “14. Refusal of licences.?(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. It would thus be evident that the licensing authority shall refuse to grant licence in respect of the prohibited arms and ammunition under section 3, 4 or 5 of the Act, 1959 or if such licence is required by a person whom the licencing authority has reason to believe that he is prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring or having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition or he is of unsound mind, or the person concerned is found, for any reason, unfit for a licence under the Act or if the licensing authority deems it necessary to refuse to grant such licence for the security of the public peace or for public safety. 9. In the present case none of the grounds as mentioned in Section 14 of the Act, 1959 appears to have been available with the respondent no.2 while rejecting the application of the petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner’s application was rejected solely on the basis of the report of the respondent no.3 submitted vide memo no.374/Go.(1) dated 21st October, 2019, a copy of which has also been annexed with counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 wherein it was reported that the petitioner had no immediate threat of his life and property. 10. The learned counsel for the State has tried to justify the impugned order by inviting the attention of this court to rule 12 of the Arms Rules, 2016 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Rules, 2016’). I have perused the said rule, the relevant part of which is quoted hereinbelow:- “12. Obligations of licensing authority in certain cases.- (1) Save as otherwise provided in the Act, every licensing authority granting a licence in Form III to an individual for the restricted or permissible arms or ammunition as specified in category I(b) and I(c) or category III respectively in Schedule I, shall have due regard to the application of norms specified in sub-rules (2) and (3). (2) For grant of a licence for the restricted arms or ammunition specified in category I(b) and I(c) in Schedule I, the licensing authority, may consider the application of- (a) any person who faces grave and anticipated threat to his life by reason of – (i) being resident of a geographical area or areas where militants, terrorists or extremists are most active; or (ii) being the prime target in the eyes of militants, terrorists or extremists; or (iii) facing danger to his life for being inimical to the aims and objectives of the militants, terrorists or extremists; or (b) any Government official who by virtue of the office occupied by him or by the nature of duty performed by him and/or in due discharge of his official duty is exposed to anticipated risk to his life; or (c) any Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly, who by virtue of having close or active association with anti-militant, anti-terrorist or anti-extremist programmes and policies of the Government or by mere reason of holding views, political or otherwise, exposed himself to anticipated risk to his life; or (d) any family member or kith and kin of a person who by the very nature of his duty or performance (past or present) or position occupied in the Government (past or present) or even otherwise for known or unknown reasons exposed himself to anticipated risk to his life; or (e) any other person, for any legitimate and genuine reason, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, by passing of a speaking order in this regard: Provided that before grant of a licence under this sub-rule, the licensing authority based on the recommendations of the district magistrate and of the State Government concerned and on examination of the police report and after conducting a separate verification from its own source, shall satisfy itself that the applicant requires such licence. (3) For grant of a licence for the permissible arms or ammunition specified in category III in Schedule I, and without prejudice to the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 13, the licensing authority, based on the police report and on his own assessment, may consider the applications of - (a) any person who by the very nature of his business, profession, job or otherwise has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property; or (b) any dedicated sports person being active member for the last two years, of a shooting club or a rifle association, licensed under these rules and who wants to pursue sport shooting for target practice in a structured learning process; or (c) any person in service or having served in the Defence Forces, Central Armed Police Forces or the State Police Force and has genuine requirement to protect his life and/or property.” 11. Sub-rule (1) of rule 12 of the Rules, 2016 provides that before granting any licence for the restricted or permissible arms or ammunition as specified in category I(b) and I(c) or category III respectively in Schedule I, the licensing authority shall have due regard to the application of norms specified in sub-rules (2) and (3). Sub-rule (2) of the said rule provides the categories of persons whose application may be considered by the licensing authority for grant of restricted arms and ammunition, whereas sub-rule (3) of the said rule provides for the categories of persons to whom the licence for permissible arms and ammunition may be granted. It is evident that grave threat perception to life is one of the grounds for granting the licence for restricted arms and ammunition. However, the petitioner has sought licence for revolver/pistol which come under “permissible arms” in category III of Schedule I for which the licensing authority shall have to give due regard to the nature of profession, business, job or other genuine reasons of the applicant so as to satisfy the requirement of Sections 13(3)(a) and 13(3) (b) of the Act, 1959. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is a builder and has to go to the remote naxal affected areas. However the licensing authority i.e., the respondent no.2 has totally ignored the said facts, rather has applied the ground totally non-applicable to the case of the petitioner. 12. The specific case of the petitioner is that he is a builder and has to go to the remote naxal affected areas. However the licensing authority i.e., the respondent no.2 has totally ignored the said facts, rather has applied the ground totally non-applicable to the case of the petitioner. 12. On perusal of the entire scheme of the Act, 1959 and Rules, 2016 it would appear that for grant of licence under category III of Schedule I, the licensing authority has to see as to whether the applicant has genuine requirement of the same for protection of his life and property. The legislature while promulgating the said statute, has been conscious of the fact that the police cannot provide security round the clock to every individual and in an emergent situation, he has every right to protect himself, his family and property. Moreover, Section 17 of the Act, 1959 itself provides for variation, suspension and revocation of licence if the terms and conditions for grant of the same as provided in the Act, Rules or any relevant laws are violated. Thus, if it subsequently comes to the notice of the licencing authority that the person to whom a licence for carrying and possession arms and ammunition has been granted, has become threat to public peace and tranquility, the same may be cancelled with other penal actions. 13. In the case of J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 2 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “34. There is yet an uncontroverted legal principle that when the statute provides for a particular procedure, the authority has to follow the same and cannot be permitted to act in contravention of the same. In other words, where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way and not contrary to it at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible.” 14. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning thereby that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following any other course is not permissible.” 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the decision of the respondent no.2 communicated to the petitioner vide letter no.115/Arms dated 7th February, 2020 is, hereby, quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to grant the arms licence to the petitioner as applied vide his application 21st October, 2019 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid observation and direction.