IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1943 of 2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.20064/2011 DATED 26/09/2011 .................. APPELLANT/PETITIONER: K.M. THAJMAL HUSSAIN, S/O. K.M. ABDUL SALAM HAJI, KOORIMANNIL MELEMANNIL HOUSE, PERIMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676 505. BY GOVT. PLEADER,SRI. JAMES MATHEW KADAVAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-12-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1943 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The grievance projected in the writ petition was against Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent, whereby the application preferred by the writ petitioner for renewal of the Arms licence was rejected. Earlier, Ext.P1 order was passed rejecting the renewal, which was challenged by filing W.P.(C) No.8226 of 2010. The said case was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment, relegating the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by approaching the 1st respondent/appellant authority under the relevant provisions (under Section 18) of the Arms Act, and to have it considered on merit, if any such appeal is filed within two weeks. 2. The case of the appellant is that, though he had preferred an appeal by registered post, it however, did not reach the hands of the appellate authority. It was much thereafter, W.A.No. 1943 of 2011 -:2:- that Ext.P5 appeal was preferred on 29.09.2010, which was not entertained and returned as defective, in view of the delay, more so, by virtue of the specific provisions under the Statute enabling the aggrieved party to prefer an appeal, which is to be filed within the prescribed time. 3. The 1st respondent rejected the appeal as per Ext.P6 order dated 18.06.2011 observing that, the right conferred upon the appellant, as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.03.2010, was to have the appeal filed within 'two weeks' and to have the same entertained, on such event. The said direction was not complied with by the petitioner/appellant, whereas the appeal was preferred only with a delay of 160 days and hence it was not liable to be entertained. This made the writ petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20064 of 2011. 4. When the matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner sought to substantiate the contention, particularly with regard to the filing of the appeal within the time as prescribed. Subsequently, the Court passed an interim order on 22.07.2011 requiring the writ W.A.No. 1943 of 2011 -:3:- petitioner to produce the materials, so as to prove the factual position in this regard. The matter was adjourned and posted for orders on 01.08.2011, when extension of time was sought for from the part of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was posted on 17.08.2011 and thereafter on 23.09.2011. Since nothing turned to be in the positive, the case was further adjourned to 26.09.2011 and even on that day, no material was ever produced from the part of the writ petitioner, in support of the contention that the appeal was actually preferred within two weeks as already directed by the learned Single Judge, as per Ext.P2 judgment. It was in the said circumstance, that interference was declined, holding that there was inordinate delay on the part of the writ petitioner in making use of the opportunity given by this Court as per Ext.P2 and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, which is under challenge. 5. Despite hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, no reference is made to any such proof even in the stage of appeal, so as to arrive at a finding contrary to the one already taken by the learned Single Judge. No material is W.A.No. 1943 of 2011 -:4:- produced before this Court to show that the opportunity given by this Court was availed of and that the appeal was actually preferred within two weeks. Going by the materials on record, it remains a fact that, the appeal was actually preferred with a petition to condone the delay of 160 days and in the said circumstance, the same was rightly declined to be entertained by the appellate authority. It has been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge as well. None of the grounds raised in the appeal does serve its purpose. In the said circumstance, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb