ORDER

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority (Lieutenant Governor, Delhi) whereby the petitioner's appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereafter `the Arms Act') preferred against an order dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Licensing Authority, was rejected.

2. The petitioner claims that he is an RTI Activist and also the President of Ganesh Nagar Resident Welfare Association. He further claims to be a property consultant. On 05.09.2013, the petitioner applied for an arms licence for personal protection.

3. On 14.11.2013, the petitioner was afforded a personal hearing. Reports were also sought from DCP (West) as well as the local police.

4. The Additional Commissioner of Police (West District) submitted a report indicating that the petitioner was involved in two cases: FIR No. 224/2009 under Section 509 IPC and FIR No. 917/1996 under Section 160/427/34 IPC. It was reported that the petitioner had been acquitted in the case relating to FIR No. 224/2009 but was admonished under Section 427 IPC in the case relating to FIR No. 917/1996. It was reported that the petitioner was residing in a densely populated area and the police assistance was available at a short distance. In view of the above, his case for grant of arms license was not recommended. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (West District) also did not recommend grant of arms license, as he found that there was no specific reason for obtaining such license.

5. In view of the aforesaid reports, the Licensing Authority rejected the petitioner's application for grant of a license by an order dated 08.07.2014. The reasons for rejection of the license as indicated in the said communication are set out below:" After due application of mind and considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that:

In view of above, your application for grant of an arms license has not been acceded to by the licensing authority and the matter is now closed at our end."

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a review petition for review of the said order, which was rejected.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal dated 23.08.2014 under Section 18 of the Arms Act, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Lieutenant Governor, Delhi). The Appellate Authority concluded that there was no genuine need which justified grant of arms licence to the appellant.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had not incurred any disqualification as envisaged under Section 14(1) of the Arms Act and, therefore, the petitioner's request for licence could not be denied. He referred to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar v. The State & Ors., W.P. (C) 1631/2012, decided on 09.09.2013 and Sahil Kohli v. Additional Commissioner of Police, W.P. (C) 5959/2013, decided on 20.09.2013. He submitted, on the strength of the said decisions, that the Licensing Authority had no discretion to reject the petitioner's application for an arms licence if the grounds under Section 14 (1) of the Arms Act were not established.

9. Mr Satyakam, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents countered the aforesaid submissions. He submitted that the petitioner had not made a full and true disclosure in his application inasmuch he had not disclosed that he was involved in two cases. Although, the petitioner had responded in the affirmative that he was involved in criminal case but he had only provided details of one of the cases that he was involved in. Mr Satyakam submitted that since the petitioner had not approached the Licensing Authority with c