JUDGMENT : M. Choudhury, J. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assail is made to an Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate- cum-Deputy Commissioner, Cachar whereby an arms licence issued earlier to the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. I have heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was a holder of an Arms Licence no. 475/III for a 0.12 Bore SBBL Gun and the said arms licence was issued by the respondent no. 3 after due verification pursuant to an application submitted by him. The arms licence was issued on 31.08.2005. The Licensing Authority after due verification extended validity of the licence up to 2024. 4. When as per requirement of Rule 15 of the Arms Rule, 2016 a Unique Identification Number [UIN] was not generated despite submission of an application by him on 22.11.2022, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 8056/2022. The writ petition came up for consideration on 11.12.2023. The Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, disposed of the writ petition by an Order dated 11.12.2023 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner’s application for generating UIN in terms of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 and the Arms Rules, 2016 and other extant rules and regulations and to pass a speaking order on merits within a period of six weeks. 5. Thereafter, the respondent authorities had issued the arms licence bearing no. LN04185A7A13B24 with UIN no. 041851004431862024 to the petitioner having a validity period from 12.07.2023 to 11.07.2024. Prior to expiry of the validity period of the arms licence, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal in the prescribed form complying with the procedure and the requisite documents on 24.06.2024. When no decision in the matter of renewal of the arms licence was received by the petitioner despite elapse of sufficient period of time, the petitioner approached this Court by way of another writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025. In the said writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. When no decision in the matter of renewal of the arms licence was received by the petitioner despite elapse of sufficient period of time, the petitioner approached this Court by way of another writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025. In the said writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent no. 3, on 31.10.2025, wherein it was inter-alia mentioned that with regard to the matter of renewal, a Report dated 18.09.2024 was received from the respondent no. 5. In the Report, the respondent no. 5 did not recommend for renewal of the arms licence of the petitioner. Taking into consideration such report, the petitioner’s application for renewal of the arms licence was not allowed. Subsequently, by the impugned Order bearing no. CAA.04/2024/20 dated 20.09.2024, the respondent no. 3 as the Licensing Authority had cancelled the arms licence no. LN04185A7A13B24. 6. Having received a copy of the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 along with the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 3, the petitioner on 17.11.2025 made a prayer to the court to allow him to withdraw the writ petition to file a fresh one assailing the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024. The said prayer was allowed by the Court on 17.11.2025. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby, the arms licence issued earlier to the petitioner had been cancelled. 7. Mr. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 has submitted that the petitioner has an adequate, alternative, efficacious and statutory remedy of appeal and as such, this writ petition is not to be entertained. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 was never communicated to the petitioner and it was only known to the petitioner when a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3 on 31.10.2025 in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025 was made available to the petitioner. As a result, there is delay to prefer the statutory appeal. It is his contention that the impugned Order was passed without communicating a copy to the petitioner and behind his back. 9. 3 on 31.10.2025 in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025 was made available to the petitioner. As a result, there is delay to prefer the statutory appeal. It is his contention that the impugned Order was passed without communicating a copy to the petitioner and behind his back. 9. The Impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 is an order passed by the District Magistrate as the Licensing Authority in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959. 10. Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 has provided for the remedy of an appeal if a licencee is aggrieved by an order of the Licensing Authority revoking the arms licence. 10.1. Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 has provided 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 therefore : 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. [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. 10.2. Rule 105 of the Arms Rules, 2016 has provided for the appellate authorities in case of the appeals preferred under the Arms Act, 1959. For ready reference, Rule 105 of the Arms Rules, 2016 is extracted hereunder : 105.Appellate authorities.- [1] The appellate authority to whom an appeal shall lie against an order of the licensing or other authority specified in column [1] of the table below, shall be that specified in the corresponding entry in column [2] thereof : Authority Appellate Authority [1] [2] [a] District Magistrate Commissioner of the Division or any other equivalent post or in any State in which there is no post of Commissioner of a Division, the State Government [b] Commissioner of Police State Government [c] Officer empowered by the Central Government in a Union Territory Administrator/Lt. Governor of the Union Territory [d] Head of Indian Mission Central Government [e] Other specially empowered officer Authority that empowered [2] * * * * * * * * [3] All licensing authorities shall work under the direction and control of their respective appellate authorities. 10.3. From the provisions of Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 and Rule 105 of the Arms Rules, 2016, it is evident that in case of an order of the Licensing Authority revoking an arms licence granted to a person, the person if he is aggrieved, has the option of preferring a statutory appeal. 10.4. Rule 108 of the Arms Rules, 2016 has laid down the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority 11. 10.4. Rule 108 of the Arms Rules, 2016 has laid down the procedure to be followed by the appellate authority 11. The question whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be entertained or not in a case where there is a specific remedy for appeal provided under the statute is answered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Thansingh Nathmal vs. the Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri and others , AIR 1964 SC 1419 , in the following manner : 7………The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy which, without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be by-passed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 12. 12. As an alternative, adequate and efficacious remedy in the form of statutory appeal has already been provided for under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 read with the provisions of the Arms Rules, 2016, quoted above, and in the light of the observations made by the Constitutional Bench in Thansingh Nathmal [supra], this Court is of the considered view instead of entertaining this writ petition against an order of cancellation passed by the Licensing Authority cancelling the arms licence in respect of the petitioner, the petitioner shall exhaust the appellate remedy first under Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. 13. It is noticed that after passing of the Order dated 22.09.2024 by the Licensing Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by instituting the writ petition on 09.12.2025. 14. The petitioner has claimed that though the impugned Order was passed on 20.09.2024, the petitioner was not aware of the same and the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 came to his knowledge only after receipt of a copy of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, who is also the Licensing Authority, in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025 on 31.10.2025. After being aware of the same, the petitioner immediately thereafter on 17.11.2025 withdrew the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 1866/2025 with the liberty to file a fresh one to assail the Order dated 20.09.2024. 15. As noticed from above, sub-section [2] of Section 18 has prescribed that no appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefrom. The proviso to sub-section [2] of has 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. Rule 107 of the Arms Rule, 2016 has prescribed the period of limitation for preferring an appeal against an order of the Licensing Authority revoking a licence. The person aggrieved by such order of revocation has to prefer the statutory appeal against such order of revoking a licence to the concerned appellate authority within thirty days from the date of issue of the order of revocation. 16. The person aggrieved by such order of revocation has to prefer the statutory appeal against such order of revoking a licence to the concerned appellate authority within thirty days from the date of issue of the order of revocation. 16. The petitioner did not approach the appellate authority at first point of time and instead, has approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, within a reasonable period of time from the date of his knowledge. If his contention regarding the date of knowledge is found acceptable, the same can also be an explanation towards sufficient cause for the appellate authority to condone the period involved for admitting an appeal, if preferred with a prayer for condonation of delay. 17. Sub-section [3] of Section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959 has provided that the period prescribed for an appeal shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act, with respect to the computation of period of limitation thereunder. It is, thus, discernible that the provisions of the Limitation Act have been made applicable to an appeal under of the Arms Act, 1959. It may be apposite to refer to the provision contained in sub-section [1] of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides for exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in a Court without jurisdiction. 18. The petitioner instead of resorting to the statutory remedy of appeal, has assailed the impugned Order dated 20.09.2024 before this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is not entertained in view of availability of the provision for preferring statutory appeal. The effect of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is wide in its application, inasmuch as it is not confined in its applicability only to cases of defect of jurisdiction but it is applicable also to cases where the prior proceedings have failed on account of other causes of like nature. In a three-judge Bench decision in Rameshwarlal vs. Municipal Council, Tonk, [1996] 6 SCC 100 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the import and purport of the words, ‘other causes of a like nature’, appearing in of the Limitation Act, has held that if the High Court has declined to grant relief relegating the petitioner to a suit in the civil court, the petitioner cannot be left remediless. Accordingly, the time taken in prosecuting before the High Court, if pursued diligently and bona fide, needs to be excluded. 19. In view of the discussion made above, this writ petition is therefore, not entertained, reserving the liberty to the petitioner to seek the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 2016. In the event the petitioner prefers any appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 read with the Arms Rules, 1959, within a period of 15 [fifteen] days from today, it is observed that the appellate authority shall consider the issue of limitation liberally in the light of the observations made hereinabove with regard to the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, if any delay has occasioned in preferring the statutory appeal and thereafter, shall proceed to consider the statutory appeal on merits and in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.