Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: constructive knowledge in Satish Arora vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 November, 2022Matching Fragments
24. Considered the submissions.
25. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board (supra) has held as under:-
16. In the instant case it is apparent that the Housing Society had preferred objections and was aware of the land acquisition process and determination of compensation and has filed objections which stood rejected on 4-9-1982. Thus, the constructive knowledge of the award is fairly attributable to it when it was so passed. Constructive notice in legal fiction signifies that the individual person should know as a reasonable person would have. Even if they have no actual knowledge of it. Constructive notice means a man ought to have known a fact. A person is said to have notice of a fact when he actually knows a fact but for wilful abstention from inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence he would have known it.
26. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the parties that neither under the Motor Vehicles Act nor under the Rules, any mode of communication has been provided, therefore, the word "communication" has to be interpreted as actual communication as well as constructive communication also.
Whether the petitioner was having constructive knowledge of order dated 04.10.2018 or not ?
27. Now the next question for consideration is that "what should be the meaning of constructive communication?"
28. In the present case, the petitioner had applied for grant of permit to ply the Bus No.MP14-P-0262 on Bhind-Gwalior-Bhind route. It is true that there is nothing on record to show that the order dated 4/10/2018 was ever sent to the petitioner by any post whether registered or ordinary, but is also not the case of the petitioner that he had tried to verify from the RTA, but he was not apprised of the status of said application. The petitioner was already plying the said Bus on different routes on the strength of temporary permits. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the RTA for issuance of temporary permit for plying the same bus. Under these circumstances, neither it can be presumed nor it can be accepted that the petitioner would not have enquired about the status of his application for grant of permit on Bhind- Gwalior-Bhind route. Even if the petitioner was not made known about the order dated 4/10/2018 by actually supplying the copy of the same, but as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board (supra), a person can be said to have constructive knowledge of the fact when he actually knows a fact but for willful abstention from inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence he would have known it. Constructive notice is a notice inferred by law and, therefore, when the petitioner was regularly appearing in the office of RTA for obtaining temporary permits for the same Bus, then it cannot be accepted that he never made any enquiry about the outcome of his application. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had constructive knowledge of the order dated 4/10/2018. Even otherwise, the petitioner had appeared in Revision No.27/2019 on 11/3/2019 and even then he did not file any application seeking permission to lift the permit before the RTA.
29. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that a verbal prayer was made in this regard and it was turned down verbally by the RTA is nothing, but an afterthought having no foundation to stand. After coming to know about passing of order dated 4/10/2018, the petitioner kept mum and applied for lifting of permit for the first time on 6/4/2022 and that too, when respondent no.3 had already applied for grant of permit on the same route and for the same timings. Although the communication of order granting permit is mandatory, but since this Court has already come to a conclusion that the petitioner was having a constructive knowledge of order dated 4/10/2018 and even otherwise got actual knowledge of order dated 4/10/2018 when he received the notice of Revision No.27/2019 filed by Harishankar Singh, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner deliberately did not lift the permit and was plying the Bus on different routes by obtaining temporary permits, including interstate routes.