The court emphasized the need for substantial justice and the liberal construction of section 5 of the Limitation Act to determine the rights of citizens on merits.

1. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dated 29-11 - 1988 dismissing the petitioner's appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act only on the ground that the appeal is beyond time.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel and have perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the appeal which was supported by an affidavit wherein the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was informed of the order passed by the District Magistrate on 12-7-1984 cancelling the petitioners licence for SBBL gun only on 30-8-1984. The petitioner filed the appeal on 28-9-1984 on coming to know of the said order. The petitioner's appeal was filed within a month from the date he received the information of the order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling his Arm's licence. By the impugned order, the Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that no cause has been shown for filing the appeal with delay. The order passed by the Commissioner is contrary to the record as the petitioner had shown cause for filing the appeal with delay, that appeal has been filed within a month from the date of the knowledge of the order. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has not delivered the affidavit filed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the rights of the citizens should be determined on merits and the authorities while deciding statutory appeals should take a liberal view of the matter of condoning the delay particularly when no prejudice is being caused to the other side. In the present matter, if the petitioner's appeal is decided on merits, no prejudice will be caused to any one.

The age of technical justice is over. We are in the age of substantial justice. The Honourable Supreme Court in several decisions have held that section 5 of Limitation Act should be liberally construed and rights of the parties as far as possible should be decided on merits. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the petitioner's application under section 5 of Limitation Act and appeal on the ground that it is barred by time.

3. We accordingly set aside the order of the Commissioner. Jhansi, Division Jhansi dated 29-11-1988 filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition and direct the Commissioner to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits within three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Petition allowed.