1997 Supreme(MP) 872

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI, TEJ SHANKAR, JJ.
Vikram Singh Rana - Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondents
W.P. No. 1646 of 1997 (G)
Decided On : 05-11-1997

Headnote:(1) Arms Act, 1959 – S. 18 – appeal found hopelessly barred by limitation – finding recorded by appellate Court on facts – High Court would not interfere in such finding.

       (2) Constitution of India – Art. 227 – writ petition under – finding of fact recorded on ground of limitation – no interference can be made in writ jurisdiction.

        Short Note

       1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 24.4.96 passed by District Magistrate, Gwalior which stands confirmed by the learned Commissioner, Gwalior Division vide order dated 29.8.97, passed in Appeal No. 63/96 – 97.

       2. Arms licence of the petitioner was suspended by learned District Magistrate, Gwalior vide order dated 24.4.96 filed with this petition as Annexure P/5. The petitioner had preferred an appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act against the order of the District Magistrate before the appellate authority under the Arms Act (Revenue Commissioner, Gwalior Division). The appellate authority considered the facts and circumstances and found that the petitioner had the knowledge of the order passed by District Magistrate. Since the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation, it was dismissed.

       3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us that he had gained the knowledge of the order passed by the District Magistrate on 24.4.96 i.e. Annexure P/5, only on 23.12.96. Therefore the petitioner cannot be faulted with in preferring the appeal beyond limitation and the delay in preferring the appeal also deserves to be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case.

       4. We have examined the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is abundantly clear from the order of the appellate authority under the Arms Act, that the service of the order alongwith notice to show – cause was effected on him on 16.6.96 but the appeal was preferred on 13.1.97. Since the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation as the learned appellate authority on the above facts also found that it was barred by time, this Court would not interfere with the order of the appellate authority under the findings based on facts.

       5. We have therefore found no merit in this petition. The petition is therefore summarily dismissed.