ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved with the order dated 6.6.2016 passed in case No. 73/Appeal/2011-12 by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa, whereby, appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 23.12.2011 passed in case No. 93/Arms/2009 by the District Magistrate, Singrauli, whereby, the petitioner's Arms License of a 12 bore gun has been cancelled on the ground that on perusal of the reports, it does not appear that without the Arms petitioner could not live the normal life.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is a bonafide resident of Madhya Pradesh and is an agriculturist as well as a fisheries contractor. The petitioner under Chapter-III of the Arms Act 1959 has applied for grant of licence to possess the 12 bore gun. After due verification and after calling the separate reports of the petitioner from the officer incharge of the concerned police station as well as Revenue Department and after conducting an enquiry, the Superintendent of Police, Singrauli recommended for grant of said licence in favour of the petitioner. The SDO (Revenue) also recommended for grant of Arms licence to the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.12.2011 passed in case No. 93/Arms/2009 by the Collector/District Magistrate, Singrauli has rejected the said application on the ground that on perusal of the reports, it does not appear that without the Arms petitioner could not live the normal life. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. The Commissioner vide impugned order dated 6.6.2016 (Annexure-P/1) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by both the authorities is improper and bad in law. The petitioner by profession is an agriculturist and also a fisheries contractor and for that work he has to travel various places and approach to various persons, even in the night hours. He further submits that District Singrauli is a nexalite area where often incidents of kidnapping, marpeet and loot take place. The Superintendent of Police, Singrauli as well as SDM, Singrauli has also recommended for grant of licence to the petitioner. He further submits that no offence was registered against the petitioner and he is a reputed person. It is further submitted that provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 have not been followed while refusing the application. The case of the petitioner does not fall within the specified reasons on which the arms license can be refused, therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State pointed out that though the petitioner has raised the objection that while recommending his case for grant of licence by Superintendent of Police, Singrauli and Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), the arms licence has not been granted to the petitioner. On reading of the impugned order, it is crystal clear that the competent authority has rightly passed the impugned order pursuing no threat to the petitioner. Moreover, grant of arms licence is not a fundamental right of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The provisions of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, which is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced herein below:

“14. Refusal of licences.?(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant?

(a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition;

(b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II,?

(i) where such licence is required by a pers