Alok Singh, J. (Oral) - Present petition is preferred assailing the order dated 7.2.2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking arms licence for revolver/pistol.

2. Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 reads as under:

"18. Appeals.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the licensing authority refusing to grant a licence or varying the conditions of a licence or by an order of the licensing authority or the authority to whom the licensing authority is subordinate, suspending or revoking a licence may prefer an appeal against that order to such authority (hereinafter referred to as the appellate authority) and within such period as may be prescribed:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order made by, or under the direction of the Government.

(2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor:

Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within that period.

(3) The period prescribed for an appeal shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908), with respect to the computation of periods of limitation thereunder.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be made by a petition in writing and shall be accompanied by a brief statement of the reasons for the order appealed against where such statement has been furnished to the appellant and by such fee as may be prescribed.

(5) In disposing of an appeal the appellate authority shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed: Provided that no appeal shall be disposed of unless the appellant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(6) The order appealed against shall, unless the appellate authority conditionally or unconditionally directs otherwise, be in force pending the disposal of the appeal against such order.

(7) Every order of the appellate authority confirming, modifying or reversing the order appealed against shall be final."

As per Section 18 of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order of licencing authority refusing to grant a licence may prefer statutory appeal.

3. Mr. D.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since initially no decision was taken on the application of the petitioner seeking arms licence, therefore, petitioner had to file writ petition seeking direction to the District Magistrate for taking decision on the application seeking arms licence; thus, the District Magistrate has passed the impugned order without applying judicial mind rejecting the application seeking arms licence and decision of the District Magistrate is arbitrary; therefore, alternate remedy of filing appeal under Section 18 of the Act is not an absolute bar against the filing and entertaining of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Honble Apex Court in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107 has held as under :

"So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) whether there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 ). The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the petitioners dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."

5. As per the dictum of Honble Apex Court, although alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, it is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. It has further been held by Honble Apex Court that in an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) whether there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

6. In my humble opinion, none of the above three contingencies is available to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner, if so advised, may file statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act before the Appellate Authority.

7. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Consequently, writ petition is hereby dismissed.

8. CLMA No. 6609 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.