ORDER : A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “i. For issuance of writ or writs in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 13.06.2023 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna / Respondent No. 2, passed in Arms Appeal No. 32 of 2022, whereby the Respondent No. 2/ Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, in a mechanical manner, without considering the facts and law and only on the ground that the Petitioner has no life threat, has passed the Impugned Order upholding the Order dated 24.12.2021, vide Memo No. 5750 passed by Respondent District Magistrate, Patna. ii. Issuance of Writ or Writs in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order dated 24.12.2021, vide Memo No. 5750, passed by Respondent No. 3/District Magistrate, Patna, passed in Arms Case No. 09441/2021 whereby in a mechanical manner, only on the ground that there is no threat to the life of the Petitioner, clearly ignoring the laws laid down by this Hon'ble Court. iii. Issuance of Writ or Writs in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3/District Magistrate, Patna to consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of NPB Revolver / Pistol License afresh in accordance with the Law laid down in the Arms Act, 1959 and law laid down by this Hon'ble Court, and pass a reasonable Order in accordance with law. iv. For issuance of such other order/orders as your Lordships deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a businessman and as he is facing a threat to his life from the local goons, he has applied for issuance of the arms license for NPB Revolver/ Pistol. The said application was given the number as Arms Case No. 09-441/2021. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the year 2016, the petitioner was attacked by some local goods and an FIR was also registered bearing Phulwarisharif PS Case No. 772 of 2016. However, the authority has rejected the application for arms license vide order dated 24.12.2021 bearing Memo No. 5750. The the petitioner aggrieved by the said rejection has preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. However, the authority has rejected the application for arms license vide order dated 24.12.2021 bearing Memo No. 5750. The the petitioner aggrieved by the said rejection has preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna. However, the appellate authority vide order dated 13.06.2023 has also rejected the appeal No. 32 of 2022 confirming the order passed by the District Magistrate. Learned counsel submits that the authority without considering the report of the SP/ SHO in a proper perspective perspective, has in a mechanical manner rejected the application for arms license and appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected in similar manner. Learned counsel submits that the authority has rejected the application for arms license on the sole ground that the petitioner does not appear to have any threat to his life and has not mentioned the point of necessity nor any evidence was presented that there was a need to carry arms. A perusal of the impugned order will reveal that the authority on one hand has stated that the SHO Phulwarisharif Police Station has recommended for issuance of the arms license to the applicant but on the other hand he holds that no clear reasons has been given for the said recommendations by the SHO is contrary to the provisions of the Act and law laid down by this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel prays this Hon’ble Court to set aside the impugned orders 21.12.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna and the order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna in appeal and remand the matter back to the District Magistrate for reconsidering the entire issue in a proper perspective and direct them to grant the arms license to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments of this Hon’ble Court and also the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in support of his case. “(i) In the case of State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar reported in 2019 (2) BLJ 50. (ii) In the case of Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Pat 9. (iii) In the case of Pramod Kumar vs. The state of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2022 (5) BLJ 575 (iv) In the case of Pawan S/o Ashok Bora Vs. State of Mahrashtra and Ors. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 267. 6. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Pat 9. (iii) In the case of Pramod Kumar vs. The state of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2022 (5) BLJ 575 (iv) In the case of Pawan S/o Ashok Bora Vs. State of Mahrashtra and Ors. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 267. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the authority duly taking into consideration the threat perception of the petitioner and also the necessity to have any arms license has rejected the granting of the arms license to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that as per Rule 12(3)(a) of the Arms Act, 2016, the petitioner has to necessarily show that there is a threat perception to his life and a need to protect his life or property. However, in this particular case, the petitioner has failed to meet the said requirement and therefore, the District Magistrate has rightly rejected the granting of license for NB Revolver/ Pistol. That the Commissioner in Arms Appeal No. 32 of 2022 has considered all these facts and passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner as there were no grounds justifying the setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate as well as the Divisional Commissioner reveal that the authority duly taking note of the fact that the SHO Phulwarisharif has recommended for granting of the arms license has come to the conclusion that the applicant being a businessman has not shown any specific reason regarding the necessity for carrying the arms license nor any evidence was presented with respect to why a weapon is necessary for the applicant. The authority has further examined the Income Tax Returns for assessment year 2019-2020 and stated that though the recommendation has been made by the SHO Phulwarisharif Police Station for issuance of arms license to the petitioner, no specific reason has been given for the said recommendations and the application of the petitioner was rejected on the above grounds vide order dated 24.12.2021. 8. 8. Further, even in the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, the authority while reiterating the order passed by the District Magistrate has simply stated that no error is visible in the order passed by the District Magistrate and further it is stated that no evidence or documents have been produced to indicate the danger to the life and property of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of the State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Deepak Kumar reported in 2019 (2) BLJ 50 has held as under; “12. The order of the District Magistrate, as communicated, does not indicate the existence of any valid reason, but, at the same time, the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner indicates that there was no mention of any specific security threat or danger to the appellant in the police report. Such a ground, in our opinion, would be contrary to the intent of grant of license inasmuch as it is not necessary that a person should have an actual threat or imminent threat perception, but it would suffice if the applicant is able to persuade the authority to take into consideration the nature of his trade, profession and calling for the purpose of grant of license which situation has now been taken care of under Sub-Rule (3)(a) of Rule 12 of the 2016 Rules. In this view of the matter, the question of grant or refusal of license will have to be revisited by the licensing authority where the licensing authority will have the power to make an assessment as per the aforesaid Rules, keeping in view the police report or such other factors which may be necessary for the said purpose.” 10. Further, this Court in the case of the Manish Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 Pat 9 has held as under; “a conjoint reading of sections 13 and 14 of the Act does not disclose anywhere that the absence of any evidence regarding threat can form a condition for refusal to grant arms licence. In my considered opinion, the licensing authority cannot apply its discretion in a manner to hold that lack of evidence regarding threat perception would make the applicant unfit for grant of licence under section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) of the Act. In my considered opinion, the licensing authority cannot apply its discretion in a manner to hold that lack of evidence regarding threat perception would make the applicant unfit for grant of licence under section 14(1)(b)(i)(3) of the Act. The provision has to be read necessarily as the same is there without substituting or taking away anything therefrom. It clearly lays down that the licence can be refused if the applicant is found unfit for any reason under the Act. However, since none of the provisions of the statute discloses that imminent danger or actual threat perception may form a ground for refusal of licence, it cannot be held that the same may form a reason declaring the applicant unfit for grant of licence under the Act in view of the provisions contained in section 14(1)(b) (i) (3).” 11. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pawan S/0 Ashok Bora Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 267 has held as under; “In the case of Vinod Kumar V. State, W.P. (C) No. 1631/ 2012 decided on 09.09.2013, the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court held that refusal of the licence on the ground that there is no specific threat to the life or property is incorrect as that is not the criteria for refusal of licence under section 14 of the Arms Act. The observations of the learned Single Judge are as under; “A situation requiring safety in the form of a fire arm cannot always be foreseen and may develop all of a sudden. For instance, there may be an attempted burglary, dacoity, house breaking or robbery in the house of a citizen in the dead of the {12} wp991416.doc night or he may be subjected to robbery, snatching etc. while on the move. It is not possible for the police official to be present everywhere and every time to protect the citizens and in fact it happens quite often that the police arrives at the scene only after the crime is already committed." I fully agree with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court. In the present scenario, where crime is ever on the rise, one can never know as to when and where the evil will strike him or his near and dear ones. In the present scenario, where crime is ever on the rise, one can never know as to when and where the evil will strike him or his near and dear ones. This is the reason why in the matter of grant of licence for a non-prohibited fire-arm, the applicant's own perception about threat to his life or property is very relevant and is required to be given due consideration and respect. In a disturbed society, an individual may, without being armed with a weapon, feel very insecure and helpless to protect himself and his family members. Enabling such a person to possess the fire-arm, if not otherwise disqualified to hold it, would be like boosting his confidence to protect himself and his family members on one hand and busting the morale of criminals casting an evil eye on him on the other. Therefore, due consideration is required to be given to the perception of the person interested in acquiring and possessing the fire-arm. Of course, there are other conditions as are referable to the provisions of sections 13 and 14 of the Act, which must also be considered while granting or refusing licence. This view finds support in other cases as well, which are discussed in foregoing paragraphs.” 12. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner was attacked by the local goods and he has lodged an FIR against the said persons. The petitioner is a businessman and perceiving a threat to his life and property has applied for arms license which is not without any basis. The registration of an FIR Phulwarisharif PS Case No. 772 of 2016 is an enough ground for coming to the conclusion that there is a threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that once the SHO Phulwarisharif has recommended for granting of the license to the petitioner rejecting the said recommendation stating that no reasons have been given is erroneous and rejecting the application of the petitioner for arms license is itself misplaced. If the authority had any doubts or needed any clarification, he should have obtained a further report from the SP/ SHO concerned but ought not to have rejected the said recommendation. 13. If the authority had any doubts or needed any clarification, he should have obtained a further report from the SP/ SHO concerned but ought not to have rejected the said recommendation. 13. Having regard to the above mentioned case and the law laid by this Hon’ble Court, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner and the District Magistrate dated 13.06.2023 & 24.12.2021 respectively are both set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Magistrate, Patna for reconsidering the entire case of the petitioner again. The authority shall duly take into account the judgments of this Hon’ble Court and also the observations made by this Court in the present case and pass a fresh order. The petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of hearing before any orders are passed. Any orders passed shall be communicated to the petitioner. 14. With the above directions, the present writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.