IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

WP(C) No.30231 of 2025

Rajeev Sahoo ..... Petitioner

Represented by Adv. -

Braja Kishore Sahoo

-versus-

State Of Odisha & Anr. ..... Opposite Parties

Represented by Adv. –

D.K. Sahoo, A.G.A.

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

MOHAPATRA

ORDER

13.01.2026 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual

/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Govt. Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed

thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with

the following prayers:-

“In the circumstances it is prayed that the Hon'ble

court will be pleased to admit the application and issue notice to the opp.parties and after hearing issue the

following writs

i) Writ of certiorari quashing the order dt.4.7.2025

and order dt. 9.9.2025 (annexure 3 and 7

respectively).

ii) Writ directing the opp.parties to grant license as

applied for by the petitioner.

iii) And any other writ and or orders as may deem fit

and proper for fare disposal of the case.”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that initially the Petitioner submitted an application for grant of an Arms Licence through the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar- Cuttack on 22.01.2021. Such application was kept pending for more than 4 years and finally, vide order dated 04.07.2025, the application of the Petitioner for grant of Arms Licence was rejected by the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that although the order rejecting his application was passed on 04.07.2025 in his absence, however, such order was communicated to the petitioner and was received by the Petitioner on 11.07.2025. Further, while explaining the communication, learned counsel for the Petitioner stated before this Court that on 04.07.2025, the order was despatched through post which was received by the Petitioner only on 11.07.2025. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the postal cover at Annexure-4.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further submitted that after receiving a copy of the impugned rejection order dated 04.07.2025, the Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 06.08.2025. He further submitted that the time prescribed for filing of the appeal against the impugned order is 30 days as per the extant rules. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this state strenuously argued that the appeal has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the learned Appellate Authority by its order dated 09.09.2025 rejected the appeal only on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand supported the order dated 09.09.2025. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State contended that since the appeal was admittedly presented on 06.08.2025 which is beyond the period of limitation of 30 days which was counted from the date of the order i.e. 04.07.2025, the appellate authority has not committed any illegality in rejecting the appeal memo only on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that while rejecting the appeal preferred by the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority has granted liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh application under Rule 10 and 11 of the Arms Rules, 2016 with proper justification before the Licencing Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack, Bhubaneswar. In the aforesaid factual background, learned counsel for the State contended that the present application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing from both sides, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents attached to the writ a