Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ishrat Ali @ Babboo v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 9548 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2967 (22 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.  By consent of parties the writ petition  is being finally disposed of without inviting counter affidavit.

This writ petition  has been filed against the order dated 15.1.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur  rejecting the application of the petitioner  U/s   5 of the Limitation  Act filed in support of  an appeal U/S 18 of the Arms Act.  An order was passed on 16.11.2006 cancelling the arm licence of the petitioner.  An  appeal was filed on 27.12.2006.  The limitation for filing the appeal is one month. There was delay of about 12 days  in filing the appeal.  Along with the appeal an application u/s  5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condonation of delay  giving reasons for condonation of delay. The appellate authority dismissed the application u/s  5 of the Limitation Act.

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

Affidavit was filed by brother of the writ petitioner  in support of Sec. 5 application in which it written statement  specifically mentioned that the petitioner is in jail  hence the affidavit is being filed by Musarrat Ali. Further, it was stated that the appellant came to know about the order only on 20.12.2006 and the certified copy was obtained on 21.12.2006 and the appeal has been filed on 27.12.2006.  The appellate authority has not disbelieved the statement in the affidavit that the appellant came to know about the order on 20.12.2006 and the appeal was filed on 27.12.2006. One week's time was  taken in obtaining the certified copy of order and preparing the appeal which cannot be said to be unreasonable.   Delay of 11-12 days  was not sufficient for rejecting the delay condonation application. In view of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application which is not said to be controverted  on behalf of the respondents, the appellate authority committed error  in rejecting the  application for  condonation of delay. The order dated 15.1.2007 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The delay in filing the appeal  is condoned .  Let the appeal of the writ petitioner  be registered  and decided in accordance with law.

The writ petition  is disposed of disposed of summarily.    




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.