High Court Kerala High Court

Saji.N.R vs The Additional District … on 21 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Saji.N.R vs The Additional District … on 21 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 29684 of 2009(E)


1. SAJI.N.R, S/O.RAMACHANDRA KURUP
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :21/10/2009

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                         ---------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No. 29684 OF 2009
                         --------------------------
              Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri. P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate,

Idukki, under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, canceling the arms

licence issued to the petitioner is under challenge in this writ

petition. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order on various grounds

including the ground that before Ext.P3 order was passed, he was

not put on notice or heard.

3. Under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, an appeal lies

from an order passed under Section 17 of the Arms Act revoking the

arms licence. The period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal

under Section 18 of the Arms Act is 30 days from the date of issue

of the order. The appellate authority is however empowered to

condone the delay, if sufficient reasons are shown for not filing the

appeal within time. Ext.P3 order was passed on 26.9.2009. As on

today, the period of limitation has not expired. Even if there is a

W.P.(C) No. 29684/09
2

short delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner can seek condonation of

delay on the ground that he had earlier moved this Court instead of

moving the appellate authority. In such circumstances, I find no

reason to entertain this writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving open the

petitioner’s contentions and his right to move the competent

appellate authority under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

vps