Shyamsunder Hrudaynarayan Pandey v. The Principal Secretary (Spl)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 18
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Be that as it may, the only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given a personal hearing. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the…
Judgment
Mr. U.N. Tripathi for the petitioner. Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. for the State. P.D. KODE, JJ. CORAM: V.M. KANADE & DATED : 21ST FEBRUARY 2012 P.C:
The only grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal under section 18 of the Arms Act without giving him a hearing.
Mr. Pol, learned P.P. appearing for the State, submits that the notice of hearing was given to the petitioner and in spite of that he did not remain present. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said 2 WP 13/2012 notice was not duly served.
Be that as it may, the only grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given a personal hearing. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority within 2-3 weeks, on which day they may either hear the appeal or give another date for deciding the appeal after hearing the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law. (P.D. KODE, J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arms Act, 1959 — s. 18.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 21 Feb 2012. The bench was P D KODE, V M KANADE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.