The limitation period for filing an appeal against an order revoking a license under the Arms Act, 1959, begins from the date of service of the order on the person affected.

( 1 ) WHETHER the appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, (for short the Act) read with arms Rules, 1962, (for short the Rules), can be filed within thirty days from the date of order or from the date of service of the order on the person against whom the impugned order revoking the licence has been passed, and what is the meaning to be assigned to the expression within thirty days from the date of issue of the order, are the short questions that fall for determination in the present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-10-86 passed by the district Magistrate dismissing the appeal as time barred and the order dated 4-12-84 revoking the licence.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he was a peaceful citizen and on the basis of some false report lodged against him at Police Station Thariyaon, Fatehpur, and without any information to the petitioner or without issuing any notice as to why not the licence No. 359 of his S. B. B. L. Gun No. 4962-79 may be suspended or revoked, his licence was cancelled by the impugned order dated 4-12-84. Against that order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed as time barred. It is against these orders that present petition has been filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the expression within thirty days from the date of issue of the order was very comprehensive and particularly, the issue of order means that the certified copy of the impugned order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur must have been served on the petitioner and from the date of service 30 (thirty) days must have been counted for filing the appeal. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in udaibir Singh v. District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, 1981 All WC 237 : (AIR 1981 All 244 ).

( 4 ) LEARNED standing counsel on the other hand, urged that thirty days limitation has to be counted from the date of the impugned order and not from the date of communication and service of the order of the petitioner and the appeal has correctly been dismissed as time barred.

( 5 ) AS regards the connotation of expression thirty days from the date of issue, of the order, the word issue has not been statutorily defined. In the aforesaid Division Bench case of Udaibir singh V. District Magistrate, Farukhabad, (AIR 1981 All 244) (supra) the expression issue of the order was not considered, rather under Para 5 (page 239) it was stated that the Court does not want to enter into the controversy, rather it decided the writ petition on the basis of computation of the order and in that case the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate was passed on 17-9-73. It was issued by the office and communicated to the applicant on 17-11-73 and the appeal was filed on 17-12-73. The application for certified copy was made on 17-11-73, copy was ready on 21-11-73 and the same was delivered on 30-11-73. Hence the period spent in obtaining the copy was deducted and the appeal was held to have been filed within time. That Division Bench case is of no assistance. In the present case against the order dated 4-12-84 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, fatehpur, the appeal was filed on 18-3-85 and the impugned order was never served on the petitioner nor any information about the decision of the appeal was given to the petitioner, whereas the statutory requirement is that in view of Rule 55 of the Rules the appeal would be maintainable within thirty days from the date of "issue of the order". Under para 3 of the writ petition it has been stated that the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate was never issued or served on the petitioner and he had no knowledge about it before 20-2-85 and on that date the petitioner made an application for certified copy of the order and after obtaining it, filed an appeal on 18-3-85.

( 6 ) AS the word issue is not defined, it is better to ha