MOHD HANIF Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner held Arms and Ammunition Licences under Form XIII, XIV and K under the Arms Act. According to the Petitioner, the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr on 29th March, 1973 directed that the stock of the Petitioner be seized and his licence be cancelled. The Petitioner made an application on 15 -4 -1973 praying that his licence be not cancelled and the order be withdraws and he may be permitted to carry on his business as before. The District Magistrate by his order dt. 29 -9 -72 rejected the application. Against the order of the District Magistrate, the Petitioner preferred an appeal. The learned Commissioner without entering into the merits of the case rejected the appeal by his order dated 16 -7 -1973 on the ground that the Appellant was absent despite due notice. In this petition the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid orders of the Respondents.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner confined his submission to the question whether the appellate authority was competent to dismiss the appeal without entering into the merits of the case on the ground that the Appellant was absent. It was urged that in the absence of any power conferred under the Act to dismiss an appeal, which was otherwise competent and maintainable in default, the learned Commissioner was not justified in dismissing {the appeal. The contention finds support from the decision of this Court in Smt. K.L. Sehgal v. Commissioner Allahabad, 1971 ALJ 595 :, 1971 AWR 248. In that case a revision was preferred under Section 3(3) of the U.P. (Temporary) Rent Control and Eviction Act. It was dismissed by the Commissioner in default. This court held that there was no indication under U.P. (Temporary) Rent Control and Eviction Act that the Commissioner may dismiss in default a revision filed before him which otherwise had to be disposed off on merits. Section 18 of the Arms Act provides for appeal. Sub -section(4) provides that every appeal under this section shall be made in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the order appealed against where such statement has been furnished to the Appellant and by such fee as may be prescribed. Sub -section (5) lays down that in disposing off an appeal, the appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed. It further provides that no appeal shall be disposed off unless the Appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Rule 56 of the Rules framed under Arms Act, lays down that on receipt of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may call for the record of the case from the authority who passed the order appealed against and after giving the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass final orders. There appears to be no indication in the Act or the relevant rules under the Arms Act that the appellate authority is clothed with the power to dismiss an appeal in default of the Appellant. In fact, the indications are to the effect that the matter shall be decided on merits by the appellate authority on the basis of material available on record. In the present case, the appellate authority did not apply its mind to the merits of the case. Consequently, his order deserves to be quashed.