CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajanarayan Pappu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 December 2025 · Citation: (2025) 12 MP CK 1982

HON’BLE JUDGES
Isha Sharma
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 18
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 46753 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 351 words

Pranay Verma, J

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain, whereby the application preferred by him under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been dismissed.

2.

An order was passed on 20.03.2024 by the District Magistrate whereby the arms lincence of the petitioner was cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Arms Act before the Commissioner. Since the same was barred by time, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also preferred by him for condonation of delay in filing the same. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected by the Commissioner by observing that no sufficient ground has been made out by the petitioner for condonation of delay.

3.

In the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has categorically stated that for a long period of time he has been ill. He is a villager and is not very well aware with the requirements and procedures of law. When he acquired knowledge of the order of the District Magistrate, he applied for certified copy of the same and has thereafter preferred the appeal. Thus, he had no knowledge of the order. The application was supported by affidavit of petitioner and there was no reason to disbelieve the avernments as made therein. The Commissioner has merely observed that the reason furnished by the petitioner is not sufficient without even discussing the reason given by him and recording any finding as to why the same is not satisfactory. In my opinion, the delay had been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner and ought to have been condoned.

4.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Commissioner is hereby quashed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal on merits.

5.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed off.