ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 06.03.2012 passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the District Magistrate in compliance of the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the Home Department of State Government has rejected his application seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Colonizer and involved in Construction work, moved an application on 21.10.2010 for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver in the prescribed proforma before the licensing Authority, i.e. respondent No.2 and submitted all the relevant documents along with the requisite fee. It is contended further that the Tahsildar, Bilaspur vide its letter dated 10.11.2010 had directed the Patwari to submit his report with regard to movable and immovable properties owned by the petitioner as to whether any land revenue is due on him or not and in pursuance to the said direction, the Patwari had submitted his report and intimated the Tahsildar that the petitioner had movable and immovable properties of about Rs.50 lacs and does not have any land revenue dues. 3. Further contention of the petitioner is that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide its letter dated 13.12.2010 has also submitted his report before respondent No.2, while recommending for grant of licence to him with regard to nonprohibited Bore/Revolver, however, despite of such a report favouring to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 vide its impugned order dated 06.03.2012 has rejected his application for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver, while intimating that his application has been rejected in pursuance to the memo bearing No.F.18-52/2/Home-C/2011 dated 21.02.2012, which was issued by the Home Department of the State. It is contended further that vide letter dated 19.11.2012, he approached the respondents for knowing about the reasons with regard to the rejection of his alleged application, but no reply was given, which compelled him for filing of the petition in the instant nature. 4. It is contended further that vide letter dated 19.11.2012, he approached the respondents for knowing about the reasons with regard to the rejection of his alleged application, but no reply was given, which compelled him for filing of the petition in the instant nature. 4. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the petitioner, it is stated by the respondents/State that although the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, Bilaspur have recommended for grant of licence to the petitioner after due enquiry of his application, but a report so submitted was examined by the Home Department, wherein it was observed that since no specific danger to his life is pointed out, therefore, a clarification to this effect was sought for from the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide its communication letter dated 29.09.2011, who in turn, has informed vide its communication dated 11.10.2011 that no specific danger to his life has been noticed. It is stated further while referring to the Circular, dated 20.08.2010 issued by the State Government, particularly, Clause 2 (i), that the application for grant of licence for nonprohibited Bore arm could be considered only where the life of the applicant applying for such a licence is seriously in danger or may likely to be danger to his life and contended further that the application of the petitioner seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver was considered in the light of the said Circular, wherein, no such circumstances were found to be noticed and accordingly, the application made by the petitioner on 21.10.2010 has been rejected vide order dated 21.02.2012, duly communicated to him vide order impugned dated 06.03.2012. It is stated further that although the petitioner had applied on 19.11.2012 for obtaining the reasons of refusal of his alleged application, but since the same was not in public interest as per the provisions prescribed under sub-section(3) of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’), therefore, it was rejected vide order dated 17.12.2012. 5. Shri Ankit Singhal, assisted by Shri Ashish Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that while refusing the petitioner’s application for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore arm, the licensing Authority has acted in quasi-judicial manner, therefore, before refusal of his application without hearing him and that too without assigning any reasons for its refusal, is apparently contrary to law. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Chhotelal Pachori Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2019(2) M.P.L.J., 697. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ State while referring to sub-section(3) of Section 14 of the Act, 1959 and that by placing reliance upon the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Adv. Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors., decided on 22nd May, 2023 in W.P.(C) 7034/2023 & CM APPL.27372/2023, submits that since furnishing the reasonings regarding the refusal of the alleged application of the petitioner, was not in public interest, therefore, his alleged application was rejected while taking note of the Government Circular dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure R-3), which therefore, does not call for any interference in this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire papers carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that an application (Annexure P-1) made by the petitioner on 21.10.2010, received on 22.10.2010 by the Licensing Authority, in the prescribed format seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver for his self defence, has been turned down by the said authority vide its order impugned dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure P-5) in compliance of the letter (Annexure R-4) bearing No.F.18-52/2/Home-C/2011 dated 21.02.2012, issued by the Home Department of State. The said letter has been provided by the respondents/State in its Return and a bare perusal of it would show that the application made by the petitioner seeking grant of licence for non-prohibited arm has been rejected after its consideration, but, no reason, whatsoever, has been provided therein as to what are the circumstances by which, it has been refused. Be that as it may, it appears from the Return submitted by the respondents/State that it was rejected while taking note of the Circular (Annexure R-3) dated 20.08.2010, particularly, Clause (2)(i) of it, which provides that the alleged licence for non-prohibited Bore arm could be provided to the applicant only, if his life is seriously in danger or may likely to be in danger and since no such circumstances were found to be noticed, the application made by the petitioner has, thus, been rejected. 9. 9. Before adverting to the issue involved herein, it is necessary to examine the provision prescribed under Section 13 of the Act, 1959 which provides 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. [(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. (2-A) 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 a 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”. 10. 10. Section 13, thus, deals with grant of licence and provides that an application seeking grant of licence under chapter II of Arms Act shall be made to the licensing authority in prescribed form accompanied by prescribed fee and, on receipt of an application under section 13(1), the Licensing Authority is obliged to call for report from the concerned police station under section 13(2) and, on receipt of the report or in the absence thereof (if the police fails to send report within the prescribed period) the Licensing Authority shall subject to other provisions of this chapter, grant or refuse the licence by passing an order in writing. Thereafter, sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Arms Act, mandates the Licensing Authority to grant firearm licence when the contingencies prescribed therein are fulfilled. 11. The tenor of language employed in section 13 reveals that if the conditions prescribed under section 13 (1), (2) and (2-A) are satisfied and there are good grounds for obtaining licence then the Arms Act leaves no discretion with the licensing Authority to decline grant of license, save for reasons detailed in section 14. 12. Insofar as Section 14 of the Act, 1959 is concerned, it begins with non-obstinate Clause and, therefore, Parliament has given over riding effect to this provision. It, thus, means that the provision prescribed under Section 14 would prevail upon the aforesaid provision, i.e. Section 13 of the Act, 1959 in all situations. The said provision which is relevant for the purpose reads as under :- “14. Refusal of licences. It, thus, means that the provision prescribed under Section 14 would prevail upon the aforesaid provision, i.e. Section 13 of the Act, 1959 in all situations. The said provision which is relevant for the purpose reads as under :- “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. 13. Clause (a) of the aforesaid provision would not be applicable as the petitioner in the instant matter has applied for grant of licence with regard to non-prohibited Bore/Revolver and, Clause (b) of the aforesaid provision would, therefore, be attracted in order to consider his application (Annexure P-1) made on 21.10.2010 and according to the said Clause, the alleged application could be refused by the licensing Authority only if, it fails to satisfy the requirements enumerated therein, i.e. under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, 1959. The application could, thus, be refused if a licence is required by the person to whom the licensing Authority has reason to believe to be prohibited by this Act or any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, or possessing or carrying any arm or ammunition, or if he is found to be of unsound mind or for any other reason found to be unfit for a licence under this Act or where, the licensing Authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety. 14. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions would, thus, show that the application applied for grant of licence for non-prohibited arm cannot be refused, except if it suffers from the conditions mentioned therein. It provides further that the licensing Authority can reject the application if it is deemed necessary for security or public peace or public safety and, it provides further that for recording of reasons in writing for refusal of the grant in writing is mandatory as provided under sub-section (3) of the aforesaid provision. 15. Insofar as the order impugned is concerned, vis-a-vis, the order dated 21.12.2012, based upon which, the order impugned (Annexure P-5) has been passed, would, however, nowhere assigned the reasons as to why the alleged application made by the petitioner on 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver was refused. 15. Insofar as the order impugned is concerned, vis-a-vis, the order dated 21.12.2012, based upon which, the order impugned (Annexure P-5) has been passed, would, however, nowhere assigned the reasons as to why the alleged application made by the petitioner on 21.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver was refused. It appears from perusal of the Return filed by the respondents/ State that it was refused while considering the same in the light of the Circular dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure R- 3) as the life of the petitioner was not found to be seriously in danger or may likely to be danger of his life and, the said reasons of absence of perceivable threat to person and security of the petitioner, though, not expressly provided either in Clause (a) or (b) of Section 14 (1) as one of the statutorily recognized reasons for denial, but the said reason would be covered under sub-clause (3) of Clause (b) (i) of Section 14 of the Act, 1959 as held by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Chhotelal Pachori (supra), wherein, it has been held to this effect at paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2, which reads as under :- 8.1 Though the reasons of absence of perceivable threat to person and security of an applicant is not expressly provided in either Clause-(a) or (b) of section 14(1) as one of the statutorily recognized reasons for denial but the said reasons assigned in the impugned order may be covered under section 14(1)(b)(i) and section (3) which provide thus:- 14. Refusal of licences – (1) Notwithstanding anything in Section 13, licensing authority, shall refuse to grant- (a) XXX (b) A licence in any other case under chapter-II - (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the LA has reason to believe-- 1. XXX 2. XXX 3. To be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act. 8.2 Thus, the reason of absence of perceivable threat to person and security of the petitioner can be read into the aforesaid statutory grounds available under section 14(1). 16. Since, a bare perusal of the order impugned dated 06.03.2012 and order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure R-4) based upon which the impugned communication was made, would however, show that nowhere such a reason for refusal of his application has been assigned therein. 16. Since, a bare perusal of the order impugned dated 06.03.2012 and order dated 21.02.2012 (Annexure R-4) based upon which the impugned communication was made, would however, show that nowhere such a reason for refusal of his application has been assigned therein. It, thus, appears that the Licensing Authority while rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver has utterly failed to assign any reason required to be made mandatorily under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, 1959 as observed in the preceding paragraphs. 17. Insofar as the principles laid down by the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Adv. Shiv Kumar (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State, is concerned, the same is, however, noted to be rejected as in the said matter, the licensing Authority has refused the application for grant of licence by assigning the reasons thereof and since the reasons have not been assigned in the instant matter while rejecting the petitioner’s alleged application (Annexure P-1), therefore, the principles laid down in the said matter would be of no use. 18. In view of the aforesaid background, the petition is allowed and the respondents/State, the licensing Authority is hereby directed to reconsider the application (Annexure P-1) of the petitioner made way back on 21.10.2010 for grant of licence for non-prohibited Bore/Revolver in accordance with the statutory provision as provided under the Arms Act, 1959 and pass a speaking order as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. No order as to cost(s).