Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit.
(2.) By order dated 10.2.1998 passed by respondent No. 3, the arms licence of the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, respondent No. 2 which was dismissed in default on 27.1.1999 as the counsel of the petitioner was not present. The petitioner then filed a restoration application which has been rejected vide order dated 26.12.2005 on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal of the petitioner ought to have been decided on merits as under Rule 56 of the Rules framed under the Arms Act the appellate authority is required to call for the record of the case and pass final orders after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The submission is that the appellate authority was not right in dismissing the appeal in default, and not deciding the appeal on merits. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority had the power to restore the case on an application filed by the petitioner and the appellate authority has erred in law by rejecting the said application.;