Punjab-Haryana High Court
Guru Anged Dev Bus Service Regd vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 29 November, 2011
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Civil Writ Petition No.2127 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.2127 of 2011
Date of Decision:29.11.2011
Guru Anged Dev Bus Service Regd.,Ludhiana ......Petitioner
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.P.S.Bawa, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms.Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Amit Jaiswal, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) The conspectus of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record is that, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, while granting the Regular Stage Carriage Permit to Jaswinder Singh son of Kartar Singh (respondent No.3), negatived the claim of the petitioner, by way of impugned proceeding/order dated 03.06.1997(Annexure P-1).
2. Sequelly, the appeal bearing No.459 of 2008 filed by him(petitioner) was also dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab(respondent No.1)(for brevity "the Tribunal"), by means of impugned order dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P-2).
3. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 and P-2), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Writ Petition No.2127 of 2011 2
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, as the impugned order(Annexure P-2) cannot legally be sustained, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be accepted on the following grounds.
5. As is evident from the record that, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of Regular Stage Carriage Permit, was declined by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, by virtue of order(Annexure P-1). Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed appeal No.459 of 2008, which was dismissed as well by the Tribunal, through the medium of impugned order dated 15.09.2010(Annexure P-2), the operative part of which is as under:-
"So, the above contention of ld.counsel for the appellant is declined. The ld.counsel for this appellant has further made submission regarding the merits of the appellant of appeal No.459 of 2008 and that of respondent No.2/grantee. But since the appeals in question are held to be barred by limitation, so, there is no need to take into consideration the merits of the appellants and that of respondent No.2/grantee, or to record any finding in this regard.
In the light of the above discussion, all these appeals are dismissed, being time-barred as well as merit-less."
6. Meaning thereby, the Tribunal has passed a very novel order, dismissing the appeal as time-barred as well as on merit in a very casual manner. Here, to me, the Tribunal has slipped into a legal error in this respect. If the Tribunal was of the opinion that the appeal filed by the petitioner was time-barred and no ground for condonation of delay is made out, then he could dismiss the appeal, as time-barred and not otherwise on merits. On the contrary, if he was of the opinion that there is a ground for condonation of delay, only then he has the power to decide the appeal on merits, after condoning the delay. In this manner, the Tribunal has passed a contradictory order, which cannot legally be maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
Civil Writ Petition No.2127 of 2011 3
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of subsequent hearing of the appeal, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned order(Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside. The case is remitted back to the Tribunal, for its fresh decision, in view of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.01.2012 for further proceedings.
November 29, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE