C.K. Thakker, CJ.—This petition is filed by the petitioner for appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to grant Arms Dealers Licence to the petitioner under Section 13 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for Arms Dealers Licence by an application dated December 29, 1999. Since he was required to take a shop on rent, he undertook the said exercise and on January 15, 2000, he took a shop on rent. On April 25, 2000, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Una forwarded his report and recommendation was made for grant of licence in favour of the petitioner. Inspite of reminders by the petitioner, nothing was done by the authorities. Being aggrieved by that action, the petitioner was constrained to approach this court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 958 of 2000. The said petition was allowed by the Division Bench on December 18, 2000. In the operative part, the Division Bench observed thus:— "In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, an appropriate direction at this stage which can be issued is to direct the respondents-authorities to decide the application of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law. Since the application was made by the petitioner in December, 1999 and about one Arms year has passed, it will be in the interest of justice if the respondent’s authorities are directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within one month from today. We may, however, state that we are not expressing any opinion on merits of the matter and the decision will be taken by the authorities strictly in accordance with law on its own merits. The writ petition stands disposed of in the terms indicated above. No costs.”

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents neither granted the licence nor even complied with and implemented the order within the stipulated period and finally by a communication dated April 11, 2001, by the District Magistrate, Una, the petitioner was informed that the Government is not in a position to issue arms dealership licence to the petitioner as "there are already two Arms dealership licence in function, who* are meeting the demand of the Arms and ammunition of the people of this area". The said order is challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings.

4. Notice was issued as to admission as well as final hearing, pursuant to which the respondents appeared. Reply affidavit is also filed. The petition is admitted. Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the action taken by the respondents is clearly illegal and contrary to law. It was submitted that it is the right of the petitioner to get the licence and since the same has been refused, the action is not only violative of the statutory rights of the petitioner but also of fundamental right to carry on business. It was also submitted that on December 18, 2000, a direction was issued by this court to decide the matter on merits within a period of one month, but it was not done. No application for extension was moved by the respondents and an order was passed as late as in April, 2001. It was also stated that though the order was to be passed by the Government, it was not done. A copy of the order was also not supplied to the petitioner and a communication was sent by the District Magistrate, Una stating therein that the Government had taken the action. Moreover, the reasons and grounds weighed with the Government that there are two other shops also cannot be said to be legal and well founded as no licence can be refused on that ground under the provisions of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the petition deserves to be allowed by issuing a writ of mandamus directing t