By the Court.—The Special Appeal by the State arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 11 December 2013. While setting aside an order passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the application filed by the respondent for grant of a fire-arm license, the learned Single Judge did not accept the view of the District Magistrate that there was no perception of threat to the life of the respondent. The Learned Judge held that sufficient reasons had come on the record in regard to the threat perception to the life of the respondent since his brother had been murdered. The Learned Single Judge, accordingly, directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter having regard to the observations contained in a judgment dated 11 October 2011 in Writ Petition 58060 of 2011 earlier filed by the respondent and directed the District Magistrate to pay costs to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent.

2. The respondent had submitted an application for the grant of a license for a Double Barrel Breach-Load (DBBL) Gun on 19 June 2007. The application was rejected by the District Magistrate, Banda. The appeal was rejected thereafter by the Commissioner. These orders were called in question by the respondent in Writ Petition 58060 of 2011. By a judgment dated 11 October 2011 the learned Single Judge, while allowing the petition, set aside the orders impugned and remanded the proceedings to the District Magistrate for re-consideration. Following the decision, the District Magistrate, Banda by an order dated 6 January 2012 rejected the application. The respondent thereupon filed an appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner who remanded the proceedings to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereafter by an order dated 29 August 2013 rejected the application which led to the filing of Writ Petition 64953 of 2013 by the respondent. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge has been passed on this petition filed by the respondent.

3. The Learned Single Judge held that the order was passed by the District Magistrate in a mechanical manner without considering the observations made by the Court in the judgment dated 11 October 2011 delivered in the writ petition earlier filed by the respondent. The relevant observations in the judgment are as follows:

“The Court held that a licence can be granted for right to life and liberty which includes within its ambit right of security and safety of a person being a fundamental right. The petitioner was entitled to get a fire arm for the purpose of personal safety and security. The Court also held that the order passed by the District Magistrate was based on surmises and conjectures.

Inspite of this direction, the District Magistrate again rejected the application vide an order dated 6.1.2012 holding that the petitioner does not have any threat to his life..............

........... The Court finds that the observation made by the writ Court in its judgment dated 11.10.2011 has not been adhered to by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate was bound by such observations and could not ignore such observations. By ignoring such observations the District Magistrate became guilty of contempt of the Court.

In the instant case, the District Magistrate has mechanically, without any application of mind and without considering the observations of the writ Court has again passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of an arms licence solely on the ground that there was no perception of threat to the life of the petitioner. Such reasoning adopted by the respondent is patently erroneous and against the provisions of Section 14 of the Arms Act. Even otherwise, the Court finds that sufficient reasons have come on record to indicate the fear of the petitioner of his life where his real brother was murdered by some assailants, and that, by itself, is a sufficient ground. It is not necessary that the petitioner should intimate the District Magistrate t