JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Instant petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:-

"(1) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the illegal, impugned order dated 12.04.2021 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj i.e., opposite party no.2 in Appeal No.01052/2020 in re: Manoj Kumar Yadav Vs. State under section 18, Indian Arms Act, 1959 and illegal, impugned order dated 07.09.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Pratapgarh Le opposite party no.3 regarding Grant of Arms License to Petitioner the illegal impugned order dated 07.09.2020 passed by District Magistrate, Pratapgarh i.e. opposite party no.2 regarding Grant of Arms License Application of Petitioner i.e., Annexure no.1 & 2 respectively, in the interest of justice.

(2) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus commanding Opposite parties to consider the Application for Grant Arms License of the Petitioner and to decide the issue of grant of arms license in accordance with law within a stipulated period in the interest of justice."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that he is a practicing lawyer at District Pratapgarh and is a law abiding citizen without any criminal record. He applied for grant of a firearms license for the purpose of personal safety and security of his property. The application of the petitioner initially remained pending with the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh, which required the petitioner to file Writ Petition No.27645 (MS) of 2016 in re: Manoj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others before this Court. This Court vide order dated 22.01.2020 disposed of the petition with a direction to the District Magistrate to consider and decide the application of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, vide order impugned dated 07.09.2020, the application of the petitioner for grant of firearms license has been rejected. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 12.04.2019 and hence the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking to challenge the impugned order dated 07.09.2020 whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of firearms license has been rejected contends that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the District Magistrate has indicated three reasons while rejecting the application of the petitioner namely (a) no reasons have been assigned by the petitioner as to why he requires the firearms license (b) there is no report of actual requirement of arms license from the authorities, and (c) there is no threat perception to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the Inspector Incharge of the Kowali Nagar Pratapgarh as well as the Tehsil authorities have both submitted their reports, as finds place in the order impugned, whereby it has been indicated that the petitioner is a fit person for being granted an arms license. It is contended that the grounds taken by the District Magistrate while rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of firearms license are totally alien to the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1959').

6. Elaborating the same, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 14 of the Act, 1959 is couched in negative terms i.e. the circumstances in which refusal of license can be made. He contends that none of the grounds, as have been indicated by the District Magistrate while rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of firearms license, fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act, 1959 and as such on this ground alone the order impugned merits to be quashed.

7. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-C No.16565 of 2012 dec