ORDER : 1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Rohan Shah learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State. 2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition challenges the order dated 02.09.2021 passed by the respondent no.2- Collector, Bhavnagar, passed in case No.DM-2/H.P. Regn. No.25/High Court Remand/2021. 4. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner had applied for a fresh license for a firearm by an application dated 15.03.2016. This was so done in light of an order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1719 of 2019 dated 17.12.2019. 5. Facts as narrated in the order need not be reiterated and are so reproduced as set out in the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1719 of 2019. The paragraph nos. 2.1 to 2.6 read as under: “2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the forefather of the petitioner happened to be the priest of the old temple of Lord Ramchandraji located and situated at the edge of Arabian Sea and close to Alang Shipbreaking yard, District Bhavnagar. The said temple is one of the oldest temple in the Saurashtra region. The then Ruler of Gohilvad His Highness Hon'ble Late Krishnakumar Sinhji had personally visited the temple and therefore, had given donation of land admeasuring 126 acres for the maintenance of the temple and the cattle being nurtured at the temples. Since then the said temple happened to be the place of worshiping of idol of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna almost about a century from today and is being worshipped by the followers from amongst the Saurashtra region and also from the different corner of the nation. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the next generation priest worshipping the idols of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna and in the Ram Gufa. The petitioner has developed the place in and around the temple by registering a charitable trust with the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bhavnagar. The petitioner has also taken care of the cattle and their healthy survival by putting lots of efforts in the agricultural field attached to the Ram Gufa temple. The petitioner has developed the place in and around the temple by registering a charitable trust with the office of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Bhavnagar. The petitioner has also taken care of the cattle and their healthy survival by putting lots of efforts in the agricultural field attached to the Ram Gufa temple. The petitioner has also put up the facility for staying there at Ram Gufa temple for the followers by developing the lodging rooms together with the kitchen and the petitioner is the care taker of the affairs of Ram Gufa temple. The Ram Gufa temple however, is located deeper interior side off village: Mathavda and close to the Alang Shipbreaking yard. The infrastructure is yet to be developed by the State for the ease of the followers who are paying periodical visits and offer their prayer at the year old idol of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna at Ram Gufa temple. 2.3. The petitioner made an application on 15.03.2016 for the license of 32 Bore revolver/pistol under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 with the office of respondent No. 2 for self defence and to ensure the overall security of the followers and the estate of Ram Gufa temple. The petitioner submitted all relevant and necessary documents with the application for obtaining Fire arms licence. 2.4. In the year 2007, the miscreants entered the temple premises broke the lock and committed an offence of theft stealing the valuables from Ram Gufa temple. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint with the Alang Police Station duly registered vide C.R No. I-11 of 2007 dated 16/02/2007. 2.5. Thereafter, in the year 2013, when repairing work of Ram Gufa temple was in progress, during the wee hours intervening the midnight of 16/02/2013, two laborers who were engaged for masonry work from the nearby villages and had stayed overnight at Ram Gufa were killed by unidentified persons and an FIR was registered being C.R No. I-01 of 2013 dated 17/02/2013 u/s. 302 of IPC read with Section 135 of GP Act with the Alang Marine Police Station, District Bhavnagar. The petitioner also submitted copies of FIRs along with the application for the Firearms filed by the petitioner with the respondent no. 2 licensing authority. 2.6. The respondent no. 2 rejected the application for the fire arms by an order dated 30/06/2016 passed in application no. DM-2/Regd. The petitioner also submitted copies of FIRs along with the application for the Firearms filed by the petitioner with the respondent no. 2 licensing authority. 2.6. The respondent no. 2 rejected the application for the fire arms by an order dated 30/06/2016 passed in application no. DM-2/Regd. No. 25/2016 considering the aspect of income and negative opinion rendered by the office of the Police Superintendent. The petitioner, therefore filed an Appeal No. 281 of 2016 under Section 18 of Arms Act, 1959 with the office of the respondent no. 1 which was also rejected by the respondent no. 1 by an order dated 12/12/2018.” 6. From the aforesaid reproduction, it is evident that the petitioner had applied for a firearm license which was rejected which gave rise to the petition. The Court while quashing the orders of the authorities below, held as under: “5. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is apparent that both the authorities below have not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 13 and 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 which read thus: 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 Page 9 of 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, or (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 recognised by the Central Government; (b) a licence under section 3 in any other case or a licence under section 4, section 5, 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 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. (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. 6. On perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that the order of rejection is not supported by any of the provisions. The respondent authorities have considered only the aspect of income and a negative opinion rendered by the office of the Police Superintendent and factors like income, the nature of business of the petitioner and no threat of any terrorism or any criminal action against the petitioner and for the purpose of handling of cash, it was observed that the petitioner can do business through banking channel. It was also taken into consideration that the younger brother of the petitioner is holding fire arms and therefore, there is no need to grant licence for fire arms to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above fact situation as both the authorities below have not taken into consideration the ingredients prescribed under the provisions of section 14 of the Act for refusal of the fire arms licence, the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the respondent No.2-Collector, Bhavnagar. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition partly succeeds and the impugned order dated 12th December 2018 Passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 30th June 2016 passed by the respondent No.2, District Collector, Bhavnagar are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh de novo in accordance with law after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.” 7. Such exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.” 7. In other words, in the opinion of the Court, while rejecting the application for firearm, ingredients prescribed under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act were not taken into consideration inasmuch as the Court found that the respondent authorities have only considered aspect of income and the negative opinion rendered by the office of the Police Superintendent and the facts like income, nature of business of the petitioner and no threat perception. The Court therefore remanded the matter back for the authorities to reconsider. It is on this direction that the order under challenge has been passed. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, what is apparent is that while reconsidering the application for a license for a firearm pursuant to the application dated 12.10.2020, the authority has once again rejected the application on the very grounds on which the Court had set aside the order for reconsideration. 9. Perusal of the order would indicate that the rejection is on the very lines as did not find favour with this Court in the first round. 10. On this ground alone therefore, the order dated 02.09.2021 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2 is directed to issue a license to the petitioner pursuant to his application dated 12.10.2020. However, it is clarified that while issuing a license, adverse instance, if any, comes to the notice of the competent authority which directly implicates the petitioner in any offence post the order impugned herein, the license may be refused. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.