ORDER 1. In pursuance of the directions issued by the apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.7.2017 (Annexure P/1) with further direction to the respondents to grant N.P. Bore pistol/revolver license to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents have passed the impugned order dated 11.3.2015 (Annexure P/4) which is reproduced herein below for ready reference and convenience :- e/;izns'k 'kklu x`g foHkkx ea=ky; oYyHk Hkou Hkksiky &%%vkns'k%%& Hkksiky] fnukad 22-7-2017 dzekad ,Q0 16&759@2016@ch&1@nks] jkT; 'kklu }kjk Jh ljnkj nyohj flag firk Jh ljnkj xqjkZ flag] fuoklh y{e.kiqjk phxkSj] jksM] Mcjk] ftyk Xokfy;j dks ,d voftZr cksj fiLVy@fjokYoj 'kL= yk;lsal lgefr ckcr izLrko dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA vkosnd dks fdlh O;fDr@lewg fo'ks"k ls [krjk ugha gksus ls 'kklu dh uohu 'kL= uhfr ds varxZr ik=rk ugha vkrh gSA vr,o vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 14¼1½] [k¼2½ ds rgr izLrko vkSfpR;iw.kZ ,oa lekèkkudkjd u ik;s tkus ds QyLo:i iw.kZ fopkjksijkar vekU; ¼fjtsDV½ fd;k tkrk gSA 2- Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkti= ljy Øekad 373] fnukad 24-7-2012 esa izdkf'kr x`g ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dzekad lk-dk-fu% 585¼v½ fnukad 24 tqykbZ 2012 ds vuqlkj vfuok;Zr% ,u-Mh-,-,y- dk mi;ksx dj ,Iyhds'ku vk;-Mh- uEcj tujsV djus ds ckn gh 'kL= yk;lsal ds vekU; ¼fjtsDV½ ds vkns'k tkjh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼Mh-,l-eqdkrh½ voj lfpo e-iz- 'kklu]x`g foHkkx i`-Ø-,Q- 16&759@2016@ch&1@nks Hkksiky fnukad 22-7-2017 izfrfyfi& 1- vk;qDr] Xokfy;j laHkkx] Xokfy;j dh vksj muds i= Ø-D;w@ih, @vkElZ@9&5@130@2016@800] fnukad 5-7-2016 ds lanHkZ esa] 2- ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] ftyk Xokfy;j dh vksj muds Kkiu Ø- D;w@14@vkElZ @9&5@104@16@8519 fnukad 28-6-2016 ds lanHkZ esa] lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq vxzf"krA 3- fo'ks"k drZO;LFk vf/kdkjh] ekuuh; ea=h ¼x`g½ e-iz-] Hkksiky dh vksj lwpukFkZ 4- Jh ljnkj nyohj flag firk Jh ljnkj xqjkZ flag] fuoklh y{e.kiqjk phxkSj jksM] Mcjk] Fkkuk Mcjk] ftyk Xokfy;j dh vksj lwpukFkZA 5- xkMZ QkbZyA voj lfpo e-iz- 'kklu]x`g foHkkx 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein, the reasons for refusal of the arms license has been specified. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily placed reliance on the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 wherein, the reasons for refusal of the arms license has been specified. It is submitted that none of these reasons have been specified in the order impugned and the same is contrary to the provisions of law which is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that though the petitioner has raised the objection that while recommending his case for grant of license by concerned Authorities i.e. Commissioner, District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, the arms license has not been granted to the petitioner. On reading of impugned order (Annexure P/1), it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly passed the impugned order in accordance with notification, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below :- “14. Refusal of licences-(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, 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 unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a license 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. (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 refuse 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. 7. On perusal of the same, it is apparent that the provisions of section 14 has not been considered by the respondents while passing the impugned order (Annexure P/1). The impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner and the reasons stated in the impugned order cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Having perused the impugned order and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, the impugned order dated 22.7.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The petitioner is directed to file fresh representation along with certified copy of this order passed today as well as relevant documents before the competent authority of the respondents within a period of 15 days from today. In case such direction is complied with within the stipulated period, the competent authority of the respondents is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks thereafter. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Rajmani Bansal for petitioner; Abhishek Mishra, Government Advocate for respondent/state