Karnataka High Court
Sri P.H. Aboobakkar vs The Karnataka State Transport ... on 4 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION Nos.32382-32383/2013 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI P H ABOOBAKKAR
S/O HASAN KUNHI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/A K.C. ROAD, TALAPADY
MANGALORE D.K.-575001
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R LOKESH & SRI H B NAGARAJA, ADVS.)
AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
V FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001
BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SECRETARY
THE KARNATAKA STATE
TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
V FLOOR, M.S. BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560001
3. SRI SHARATH MAROLI
S/O SADASHIVA MAROLI
AGED: MAJOR
R/A "ANUGRAHA", K.C.ROAD
TALAPADI, MANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T S MAHANTESH, AGA. FOR R1 & 2
SRI. B G RAGHURAM, ADV. FOR R3)
2
THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.07.2013 IN
RP 330/2013 AND 331/2013 VIDE ANNX-F AND G TO THE WRIT
PETITION IN DISMISSING THE REVISIONS THE POINT OF
LIMITATION IS ERRONEOUS AND THE DELAY IN FILING THE
REVISIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONDONED AND THE MATTER
MAY BE REMANDED TO THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE
MERITS OF THE SUBJECTS IN REVISIONS WITH IN 3 MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER IN THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.07.2013 passed in RP Nos.330 and 331 of 2013 impugned at Annexures-F and G to the petitions. The orders impugned are passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('the KSTAT' for short) on the applications filed seeking condonation of delay in preferring the revision petitions in R.P.Nos.330-331/2013
2. The petitioner herein and the third respondent are rival operators. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2011 granting fresh Stage Carriage Permit and the subsequent order dated 3 28.11.2012 whereby the timings had been assigned had preferred the said revision petitions before the KSTAT. Since there was delay in filing the appeal as it was beyond the period of 30 days, as provided, the petitioner filed applications in both the petitions seeking condonation of delay by assigning similar reasons. The applications have been rejected by the impugned orders at Annexures-F and G. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the petition papers. The reasons as assigned would indicate that the KSTAT also has arrived at a conclusion that if the date of knowledge as indicated by the petitioner is taken into consideration, the petition has been filed within a short duration viz., in about 30 days from the said date. However, the KSTAT while taking into consideration the initial pronouncement on 11.11.2011 with regard to grant of fresh Stage Carriage 4 Permit and the date viz., 28.11.2012 on which the assignment of timings was made, was of the opinion that there is inordinate delay. The KSTAT in fact has also taken into consideration that the petitioner in any event would not have knowledge unless he was a participant in the proceedings whereunder the Stage Carriage Permit was granted and the timings was assigned in the said proceedings. However, the only reason for which the KSTAT has found that the explanation cannot be accepted is that since in the provision there is no specific indication to compute the time from the date of the knowledge, but would have to be taken into consideration from the date of the order.
4. Though that is the position, while an application for condonation of delay is considered it is for that reason the Courts, authorities, Tribunals would have to take into consideration the reasons assigned to come to the conclusion as to whether sufficient cause is made out for 5 condonation of delay. In the instant facts, as already noticed, the Tribunal itself has concluded that the petitioner did not have knowledge of the orders which were impugned in the revision petitions. The petitioner had indicated that he had knowledge of the said orders only when the third respondent had commenced operation of the services. Such explanation appears to be reasonable. Further what is also to be kept in view while considering an application for condonation of delay is as to whether the party seeking condonation of delay would have benefited from his action by remaining silent for a long time. In the instant facts, the petitioner in any event, would not have benefited if he had deliberately not challenged the order and had therefore caused delay, since it is the petitioner who would have lost due to the operations of the services being undertaken by the third respondent. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, the conclusion of the KSTAT to reject the 6 application for condonation of delay would not be justified. The matter would require consideration on merits.
5. Hence the orders dated 06.07.2013 passed in R.P.Nos.330 and 331 of 2013 are set aside. Consequently the applications are allowed and delay is condoned. The revision petitions are restored to the file of the KSTAT which shall notify the parties and consider the revision petition on merits and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible.
The petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms