ORDER 1. Since similar legal question is involved in these matters, the matters are analogously heard. 2. Shri Prashant Sharma submits that by impugned order, Annexure P-2, the petitioner’s arm licence was suspended, against which appeal was preferred before the appellate authority. Learned counsel submits that appellate authority has committed an error in holding that the appeal at this stage was not maintainable. Shri Sharma submits that under section 17 of the Arms Act, 1959, arm licence can be suspended for a limited period and it cannot be done without mentioning the period for which arm licence is suspended. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The contention of Shri Prashant Sharma has force that appeal was very much maintainable under section 18 of the Arms Act, 1959. A bare perusal of section 18(1) of the Act makes it clear that against suspension of arm licence, appeal is maintainable. Section 18(1) reads as under:- “18(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.” (Emphasis Supplied) 5. Thus, bare perusal of the provision shows that the appeal was very much maintainable against suspension of licence before the appellate authority. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, appellate authority has erred in holding that at this stage appeal is not maintainable and because of that finding, the appellate authority did not deal with the merits of the matter and the contention raised by the appellant were not considered on merits by the said appellate authority. In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority dated 13.06.2012, whereby it was held that appeal was not maintainable. Since this order runs contrary to section 18 of the Arms Act, order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits. Since this order runs contrary to section 18 of the Arms Act, order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to consider the appeal of the petitioner on merits. It is expected that the said authority shall deal with it in accordance with law on merits and pass appropriate orders preferably within 30 days. 7. Petitions stand disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.