NIRMAN SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER MEERUT DIVISION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11-1-1994 and 22-2-1994 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 15-10-1993 of the District Magistrate cancelling his fire arm licence. The learned Standing Counsel was granted one month's time on 23-3-1994 to file counter affidavit but no such affidavit has been filed. In view of the fact that nearly one year has elapsed, I do not consider it proper to grant any further time for filing counter affidavit and the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) A notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause why his fire arm licence be not cancelled. The petitioner gave reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and after considering the entire material, the District Magistrate, Bullandshahr by his order dated 15-10-1993 cancelled the fire arm licence granted to him. Against the order dated 15-10-1993 the petitioner preferred an appeal on 7-1-1994 without any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and without showing any cause for condonation of delay. It may be noticed that Sub-Section (2) of Section 18 of the Arms Act provides that no appeal shall be admitted if it. is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor. The proviso to this Sub-Section lays down that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. Rule 55(b) of the Arms Rules lays down that the limitation for filing the appeal is 30 days. It is obvious that the petitioner did not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. within 30 days, as the order of the District Magistrate was passed on 15-10-1993 and the appeal had been preferred on 7-1-1994 i.e. after 83 days. The period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the order was only 5 days. The petitioner did not give any explanation whatsoever nor moved any application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. In these circumstances, the Commissioner had no option but to dismiss the appeal. Thus there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 11-1-1994.

(3.) Subsequent to the dismissal of the appeal the petitioner preferred another appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the limitation Act on 14-1-1994 which was registered as Appeal No. 8 of 1994. This appeal was dismissed as not maintain able by the order dated 22-2-1994. Sub-Section (7) of Section 18 of the Arms Act provides that every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying or reversing the order appealed against shall be final. In view of this provision, earlier order dated 11-1-1994 dismissing the appeal became final and the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable. The order dated 22-2-1994 passed in appeal No. 8 of 1994 is therefore perfectly correct and calls for no interference.