Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9993 of 2018 Petitioner :- Zila Bus Operators Associations And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Singh,Greesh Kumar Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Sri Rahul Agrawal, holding brief of Sri S.K. Mishra, for the respondent no.4.
Considering the nature of the order that is being passed, the learned counsel for the respondents not pray for time to file counter affidavit and therefore with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally.
Aggrieved by an order of the State Transport Authority dated 12.08.2016 granting permit to the fourth respondent, the petitioner, which is an association of private bus operators, filed revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The revision was presented on 27.09.2016. The period of limitation for filing revision, as per Section 90 of the Act, was 30 days, therefore an application was filed by the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the revision. For condonation of delay, it was claimed that on 12.08.2016 though the matter was heard but order was not passed then and there and, in fact, the petitioners were advised to later check for the order. It was pleaded that knowledge about the order dated 12.08.2016 was received on 08.09.2016 upon enquiry by the petitioners from office. Otherwise, the petitioners were not informed about the order. It was stated that upon receipt of knowledge about the order, they applied for certified copy of the order and, thereafter, preferred revision well within 30 days from the date of receipt of the knowledge. Hence, it was prayed, the delay, if any, in filing the revision be condoned.
The revisional authority rejected the delay condonation application on the ground that on 12.08.2016 the association was heard and the case was decided on that day itself therefore they must have had knowledge about the order hence the explanation offered was not acceptable to condone the delay.
Assailing the order passed by the revisional authority, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Rule 60 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 every decision of the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority has to be published on the notice board by the Secretary of the concerned Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority and in absence of its publication or proof of its communication/information of the order, the date of the order would be deemed to be the date on which the order is communicated or published and as there exists no material on record to show that the order was published as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules or otherwise communicated to the petitioners, the date of the order would be deemed to be the date of its knowledge, hence revision of the petitioner was well within the period of limitation. In the alternative, it has been submitted that in any view of the matter since the Revisional Authority had the power to condone the delay in filing the revision, the delay condonation application ought not to have been rejected on technical ground and the revision ought to have been decided on merits.
Sri Rahul Agrawal, who has appeared on behalf of the fourth respondent, though sought to defend the order passed by the Revisional Authority but did not dispute the fact that the revisional Authority/Appellate Tribunal had the power to condone the delay as per the provisions of second proviso to Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that a short delay of about 15 days ought to have been condoned when an explanation was offered that the order was neither published nor communicated and that knowledge about the order was received upon enquiry from the office. It is well settled that power to condone the delay has to be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice and the limitation should not be used to shut out adjudication on merits, particularly, where the delay is not inordinate which, if condoned, would cause substantial prejudice to the other affected party. Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, dated 19.03.2018, and allow the delay condonation application as well as condone the delay in filing the revision. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow shall register the revision and decide the same on merits. All legal and factual pleas on merits of the case are kept open for both sides to address before the Tribunal.
The petition stands allowed as above.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 AKShukla/-