Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the STAT as well as learned Single Judge had erred in holding that there was constructive knowledge of order passed by the State Transport Commissioner to the appellant which was reserved on 10.4.2001. Relying upon judgments of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Das and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 3 SCC 545, State of Maharashtra and others v. M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Limited, AIR 2011 SC 1374 and Single Bench judgments of this Court in CWP No.15186 of 2010 (Jain Motors Regd. Patiala v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others) decided on 12.12.2011 and Manjit Kaur v. State transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another, CWP No.3423 of 2012, decided on 19.9.2012, it was contended that the view of the learned Single Judge being contrary to the aforesaid judgments was unsustainable. Referring to the meaning of the word "constructive", it was urged that as per the Law Lexicon, constructive knowledge means "if one by exercise of reasonable care would have known a fact, he is deemed to have had constructive knowledge of such fact; e.g. matters of public record." On the above premises, the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singh's case (supra) was sought to be distinguished.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

5. In Jagtar Singh's case (supra), a Full Bench of this Court after examining the scope of Rule 85 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short, "the Rules") and also Second Proviso to Section 80(2) and Section 89 of the Act had observed that wherever the order passed by the State or the Regional Transport Authority had not been actually communicated to the persons concerned, the aggrieved party could file an appeal from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the order and the period of limitation would start running from the said date. It was held that the date of actual or constructive knowledge would depend upon peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. It was recorded as under:-

"Can a person who knows about the order, can still wait for orders and suddenly come up with the plea that since the order had not been communicated, he would file the appeal giving any date to his convenience as the date of the knowledge of the order."

Relying upon Raja Harish Chandra's case (supra), the Court answered the question in negative and held that since the application made by the petitioner had been rejected and a permit granted to the opposite party in November, 1988 and since the successful party had started plying on the route concerned, it was not possible to believe that the petitioner did not know or could not have had the knowledge of the making of the order for more than two years. When the route was being operated, observed the Court, the petitioner must be presumed to know that permit had been granted to the other party and not to it, thereby giving to the aggrieved party the constructive knowledge about the rejection of his request for a permit. We respectfully approve the reasoning given in the decision rendered by this Court in Banda Bahadur's case (supra) and hold that even in cases where there is no formal communication of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal would start running from the date the aggrieved party acquires actual or constructive knowledge of the making of the said order. Whether or not the aggrieved party had any such knowledge will, however, be a matter to be seen by the Tribunal in each case depending upon its peculiar facts and circumstances. It will not, therefore, be necessary or proper for us to enumerate exhaustively situations in which such knowledge can be imputed to the party aggrieved, while examining whether or not the appeal is within limitation."

6. Examining whether the appellant had actual or constructive knowledge of order dated 10.4.2001 passed by State Transport Commissioner, respondent No.1 while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant had noticed as under:-

"In Jagtar Singh's case (supra), it has been specifically held that even in cases where there is no formal communication of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority, the period of limitation prescribed for filing the same, shall start running from the date the aggrieved party acquired actual or constructive knowledge of making of the said order. Whether or not the aggrieved party had any such knowledge will, however, be a matter depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the applications made by the appellants were rejected about six years before filing of these appeals. The successful parties had been found plying on the route in question. In these circumstances, it is not possible to believe that the appellants did not know or could not have had the knowledge of passing the order of all these years. When the route was being operated, the appellants must be presumed to know that the permits had been granted to the other parties and not to them, meaning thereby that they had the constructive knowledge about the rejection of their request for permit.