JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Jay B. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 2. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 3. By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 28.06.2018 and 06.06.2019 passed by the competent authorities, by which, the application of the petitioner for an arms licence, in addition to the one he already possesses for protection of crop from cattle has been rejected. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is engaged in the business of cement production and, therefore in course of his business, he has to undertake much cash transactions. He, therefore, needs an arms licence to protect his life which is in danger because of much amounts of cash that he carries. 5. It appears that the application for renewal of such licence has been rejected on the following four grounds: (a) That the petitioner does not have appropriate training from recognized institution. (b) That for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 his Income Tax returns were NIL. (c) That there is no perception of any threat to his life. (d) that the petitioner already possesses a licence for crop protection. The other ground is that adverse opinion has been received from the DSP office. 6. Mr. Kaushal Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as far as the objection with regard to the petitioner not having undertaken training from a recognized institute is concerned, the petitioner has a certificate of training issued by the Bhavnagar Gun House. As far as the other two grounds i.e. with regard to his IT returns and perception of threat, Mr. Modi would rely on an order passed by this Court in SCA No. 14823 of 2019 dated 3.9.2019. 7. Mr. Jay B. Trivedi, learned AGP for the respondents would submit that the order of the authorities is just and proper. The petitioner already possesses the licence for crop protection and, therefore, there is no reason why he needs another licence and he also relies on the endorsement upon the licence issued for the crop protection which indicates that it is extended upto area beyond Vinchhia. 8. The petitioner already possesses the licence for crop protection and, therefore, there is no reason why he needs another licence and he also relies on the endorsement upon the licence issued for the crop protection which indicates that it is extended upto area beyond Vinchhia. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, what needs to be appreciated is that the application of the petitioner for renewal of arms licence has been rejected on multiple grounds. Essentially, one of the four grounds which have weighed with the authorities is that he did not have a certificate of training from a recognized institute. As far as that is concerned, in light of the averment made in the petition that the petitioner possesses a certificate of the Bhavnagar Gun House, it is open for the respondent authorities to reconsider this point in considering application for renewal. The other two grounds namely; that of the petitioner having NIL IT returns for the past three years i.e. 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and that there is no perception of threat to his life, these findings of the authority deserves reconsideration in light of the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 14823 of 2019 in which, this Court held as under: “4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the petitioner had made an application for firearm license before the License Issuing Authority i.e. District Magistrate, Botad. The order passed by the License Issuing Authority dated 15.04.2015 would indicate that the application of licence is rejected on the ground that there is no danger to the life of the petitioner as he has not received any threat, the income of the petitioner is not so high, at present, e-banking facility, credit card and debit card facility is available and that he already possesses 12 Bore gun licence for crop protection. Other than this, there are no reasons mentioned in the order of the licence issuing authority. Consequently, order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in Appeal No. 223 of 2015 also reiterates the findings given by the License Issuing Authority. 5. Moreover, the authorities have not taken into considered the positive opinions from the District Superintendent of Police, Deputy Collector and Police Sub Inspector. Consequently, order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department in Appeal No. 223 of 2015 also reiterates the findings given by the License Issuing Authority. 5. Moreover, the authorities have not taken into considered the positive opinions from the District Superintendent of Police, Deputy Collector and Police Sub Inspector. This Court is also of the opinion that the grounds mentioned in the impugned orders are not germane to Section 14 and possession of crop protection firearm licence cannot be bar to possess self-defence licenced weapon. It is also required to be noted that the petitioner is not involved in any offence/criminal activities. 6. In view of the aforesaid, order dated 03.07.2018 passed by the Joint Secretary, Home Department (Appeals) in Appeal No. 223 of 2015 and order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Botad are quashed and set aside. It is open for the petitioner to make a fresh application with necessary documents to the License Issuing Authority within period of two weeks from today. The District Magistrate shall consider such application afresh, in accordance with law and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within period of two months therefrom.” 9. The ground No. 4 with regard to the petitioner possessing an alternative licence for crop protection is not disturbed. 10. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner for renewal of his licence only in light of the observations made by this Court inasmuch as, on the aspects of the competent training certificate, and financial transactions. 11. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.