Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The Writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.5.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Gatum Budh Nagar dismissing the application for grant of fire-arm licence moved by the petitioner pursuant to the orders dated 7.10.2013 and 25.11.2013 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 3268(MB) of 2013, Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, another Writ-C No. 40934 of 2014 and Writ Petition No. 65647 of 2013, Chandraraj Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another, this Court has passed the order which is being extracted below :

“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, the Court is constrained to observe the manner and functioning of the District Magistrate, Banda and his office. No action was taken on the petitioner’s application and it is only when the Court issued an order on 2.12.2013 then a police report was called, which is dated 4.12.2013 and the order was passed on 5.12.2013. The Court doubts the veracity of the police report. The Court gets an uncanny feeling that a perfunctory exercise was done by the police and the report was submitted without any basis. Nothing has been indicated as to why the earlier report given by the same police station had become redundant.

3. The Court is also constrained to observe that the mere fact that the District Magistrate has taken charge on 28.9.2013 does not absolve him for not giving the reason before this Court as to why the application of the petitioner remained unaddressed. The District Magistrate was required to hold an enquiry and take action against the erring official, if any,. The District Magistrate cannot shirk from his duty by brushing it aside on the mere pretext that he took the charge on 28.9.2013.

4. On the merits of the order of the District Magistrate, Banda, the Court finds that the earlier police report was in consonance with the Government Order dated 31.3.2010, which recommended that on account of the job of the petitioner he could perceive or face threat to his life. This report was found to be genuine by the appellate authority and on that basis the District Magistrate was required to act upon but he failed to do so for three years and only acted upon a report, which was hurriedly prepared within 24 hours, when the Court issued a direction on 2.12.2013. Such subsequent police report, which has been submitted without any application of mind and without due enquiry, cannot be taken into consideration.

5. The Court finds that the order of the Division Bench has wrongly been interpreted. For facility, the extract of the order dated 7.10.2013 is quoted hereunder:

“Till then, no fresh licences under the Arms Act will be issued in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This order will however, not apply to applicants claiming licence under family heirloom policy and to victims of crime, having genuine need of weapon in the opinion of concerned District Magistrate.”

According to the Division Bench no fresh licence would be granted under the Arms Act but will not include

(a) applicants who have applied as an heir;

(b) applicants who are victims of crime; and

(c) applicants having genuine need of weapon in the opinion of the concerned District Magistrate.

6. The Government Order dated 8.11.2013 wrongly interpreted the order of the Court and has wrongly issued a direction in its order dated 8.11.2013 directing all the Prescribed Authorities not to grant fresh licence except to those applicants who are heirs and who are victims of crime. The Government excluded the third direction namely, the applicants having a genuine need of weapon in the opinion of the concerned District Magistrate.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, the Government Order dated 31.3.2010, the order of the Division Bench dated 7.10.2013, do not come in the way of the District Magistrate in rejecting the petitioner’s application. The Gov