NELSON Vs. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner possessed an Arms Licence, a copy of which is Ext.P1. He made Ext.P2 application for its re-registration. That was rejected by Ext.P3 order. The petitioner sought review of Ext.P3 and that was also rejected by Ext.P5. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P6 appeal before the first respondent with an application to condone the delay of 102 days. By Ext.P8, the application to condone delay was rejected and consequently, the appeal was also rejected. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) A reading of Ext.P8 shows that no reason whatsoever has been stated by the first respondent to decline to condone the delay. That apart, the pleadings in the writ petition show that on the passing of Ext.P3 order by the District Collector, though erroneously, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 application seeking its review. It was rejected by Ext.P5 and it was thereafter that Ext.P6 appeal was filed. This sufficiently explains the delay on the part of the petitioner.