Allowed

Surendra Pal v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2018WRIC/42891/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, rejected by the Commissioner as time-barred. The High Court allowed the writ petition, condoning the delay based on the petitioner's active contest and counsel's inadvertence, and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously upon payment of court costs.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order; allow the appeal subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs; remand to appellate authority to decide expeditiously.

Surendra Pal Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42891 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Surendra Pal Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, by which the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 against the order of the District Magistrate dated 21.08.2017 has been rejected as time barred.

¶6

Earlier, upon cancellation of petitioner's fire arm licence, he had filed Writ-C No. 59244 of 2015 which was allowed by order dated 18.07.2017. The earlier orders passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority dated 09.01.2015 and 14.08.2015 were set aside and the matter was remitted to the licensing authority. While the licensing authority passed a fresh order cancelling the petitioner's fire arm licence on 21.08.2017, it has been submitted that the petitioner had approached his counsel and handed over all papers to him for filing the necessary appeal against that order. Owing to certain inadvertence, the appeal could not be filed since the papers handed over by the petitioner to his counsel got misplaced. On such facts, the petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 21.08.2017. The appeal itself was filed on 14.11.2018. That has been rejected by the Commissioner by the impugned order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been diligently pursuing the matter since beginning and had contested the matter upto this Court. In such circumstances, the appeal has been wrongly rejected on the ground of delay, taking

¶8

a very strict view in the matter.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal and therefore the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶10

Keeping in mind the nature of rights that are sought to be adjudicated in the present proceedings and the fact that are largely undisputed, no useful purpose would be served in calling for a counter affidavit and keeping this petition pending . Therefore, the petition is being disposed of by this order with the consent of leaned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that undisputedly the petitioner had been contesting the cancellation of his fire arm licence and the matter once reached to this Court, where after the matter was remitted to the licensing authority. Before the licensing authority, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings on remand. In such facts, it cannot be said that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing his right. As to the delay, the explanation had been offered by the petitioner of inadvertent error on part of the counsel in having misplaced the papers. Perusal of the impugned order does not make out any ground as may have existed to disbelieve the explanation offered by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal. Also, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the respondent State owing to the delay as may have resulted in any right having vested in favour of the State. The delay may therefore have been looked at more pragmatically and for the purpose of condonation of delay, appropriate costs may have been imposed as a condition to condone the delay.

¶12

Keeping in mind the aforesaid facts, the petition is allowed

¶13

subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The impugned order dated 22.11.2018 is set aside. On petitioner depositing the costs of Rs. 5,000/- within a period of three weeks from today, the appellate authority shall proceed to hear and decide the petitioner's appeal strictly in accordance law as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

The amount of costs shall be deposited by the petitioner in the accounts of the Allahabad High Court Legal Services Committee, at Allahabad..

¶15

Order Date :- 20.12.2018 AHA

Surendra Pal v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Pal v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Media Ventures Ltd. and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yakub Khan Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax Lko.

Jagmohan Vs State of U P and 03 Others

S/S Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Kshetriya Shree Gandhi Ashram Mau and Another Vs Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and Another

Dhirendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others