Allowed

A.Aboobacker v. the District Magistrate

Kerala HC13 Feb 2019WP(C)/4232/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, held that the rejection of an arms licence appeal due to filing delay was unsustainable. The court condoned the petitioner's delay citing prolonged medical treatment for renal failure and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P4 order set aside; direction to appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits and pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.

A.Aboobacker Vs the District Magistrate — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 24TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4232 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

A.ABOOBACKER AGED 53 YEARS S/O. MOHAMMED, ARAHNIKKAL HOUSE, MATTERAKKAL P.O., ARAKKUMPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶11

2 THE BOARD OF REVENUE, KERALA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, VIKHAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

GP B VINITHA.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 4232 of 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P2 order of the Land Revenue Commissioner dismissing the appeal preferred under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner's request for renewal of arms licence had been rejected by the District Magistrate. Section 18 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority and within such period as may be prescribed. It is further stated that no appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed. The proviso to Section 18(2) provides that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period. 2. Rule 55 (b) of the Arms Rules, 1962 provides that the appeal has to be preferred within thirty days from the date of the issue of the order. The prescription is subject to proviso to sub section (2) of Section 18. The petitioner had preferred an appeal

¶18

WP(C).No. 4232 of 2019 3

¶19

with a long delay. It appears that the petitioner has also preferred an application for Condonation of Delay specifically stating that the petitioner had been under prolonged treatment

¶20

for renal failure after a paralytic stroke and that he was under constant medical care of Kovai Medical Centre at Coimbatore. By the impugned order, the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could have preferred appeal either through an authorised person or through an advocate. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. It is therefore contended that the refusal to consider the appeal on merits on the ground that the petitioner ought to have preferred the appeal through an authorised representative or through a lawyer is not sustainable. The Rules provide for showing of cause and once sufficient cause has been shown, the appeal is liable to be considered on merits.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader would submit that the appellate authority has given reasons for the rejection of the appeal. It is stated that there is a long delay of 805 days and that it is the satisfaction of the appellate authority which is relevant in the matter.

¶22

WP(C).No. 4232 of 2019 4

¶23

I have considered the contentions

¶24

advanced. The application for renewal of arms licence is to be considered in terms of Sections 13 and 15 of the Arms Act. When an application for renewal is rejected the petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 18. Though the time prescribed under Rule 55 is thirty days from the date of the order of rejection is issued, the proviso prescribes that on showing sufficient cause, the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. The petitioner had submitted an application showing cause for the delay in approaching the appellate authority.

¶25

I am of the opinion that the rejection of the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petitioner could have preferred the appeal through another person is not sustainable. The hospitalization and continued medical treatment of the petitioner is a sufficient ground to condone the delay in approaching an appellate authority with an appeal. I am of the opinion that the statutory appeal was liable to be considered on merits by the designated appellate authority.

¶26

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P4 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the appellate authority to take up the appeal preferred by the petitioner and to consider the same on

¶27

WP(C).No. 4232 of 2019 5

¶28

merits and pass orders within a period of two months from the

¶29

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

rmm

WP(C).No. 4232 of 2019 6

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/4/2015 OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MALAPPURAM.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL ALONG WITH DELAY PETITIONER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHALAN DATED 24/7/2017, PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER ARMS ACT.

¶41

EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. L.R. A538468/17 DATED 7/12/2017 OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

¶43

// TRUE COPY //

¶44

P.A TO JUDGE

A.Aboobacker v. the District Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Aboobacker v. the District Magistrate

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

P.K.Balan Vs the Chief Engineer

E.K. Abdul Khader Vs Jogy P. Jose

Suja K.T Vs Sri. Dwarakanathan V.K.

Tewa Isaac Vs Union of India

Aysha T.K Vs Chief Engineer

Dr.Hariraj N. Vs the Director of Medical Education