IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29684 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SAJI.N.R, S/O.RAMACHANDRA KURUP NERIYATHU, ANAKAYAM, ANCHIRI, ALAKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IDUKKI. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29684 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. P.Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.N.Santhosh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Idukki, under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, canceling the arms licence issued to the petitioner is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order on various grounds including the ground that before Ext.P3 order was passed, he was not put on notice or heard. 3. Under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959, an appeal lies from an order passed under Section 17 of the Arms Act revoking the arms licence. The period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act is 30 days from the date of issue of the order. The appellate authority is however empowered to condone the delay, if sufficient reasons are shown for not filing the appeal within time. Ext.P3 order was passed on 26.9.2009. As on today, the period of limitation has not expired. Even if there is a W.P.(C) No. 29684/09 2 short delay in filing the appeal, the petitioner can seek condonation of delay on the ground that he had earlier moved this Court instead of moving the appellate authority. In such circumstances, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving open the petitioner's contentions and his right to move the competent appellate authority under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps