IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.52501 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
PRABHAKAR. B S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT BALUGODU VILLAGE AND POST, SULLIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 218.
(BY MR. S K ACHARYA, ADV. FOR MR. U VIGNESHWARA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU-575 001.
3. THE TAHASILDAR SULLIA TALUK, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 218.
4. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS WILDLIFE DIVISION, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 201.
… PETITIONER 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU-570 001.
(BY MR. Y D HARSHA, AGA) … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 29.10.2018 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.S.K.Acharya for Sri.U.Vigneshwara, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 266 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 has been rejected on the ground that the same is vitiated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has dismissed the delay condonation application without assigning any reasons and the impugned order passed by the appellate authority suffers without any application of mind.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submitted that no reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Authority for rejection of condonation of delay application.
6. After going through the petition and in view of submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and taking into account the well settled legal proposition that expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive true construction so as to advance the cause of justice. I find that in this case, sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 325 days in filing the appeal were made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.10.2018 is hereby quashed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously.
Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV