VARGHESE Vs. R T O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of our learned brother, Bhat, J. dated 24th August, 1984 rendered in O. P. No. 6482 of 1984. The appellant herein was the petitioner in the O. P. He impugned Ext, PI3 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam dated 12th June, 1984 rendered in M.V.A.R.P. No. 82 of 1984. The main question that was urged before the learned Single Judge was that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal erred in adjudicating the matter on merits, since the revision was barred by limitation. It is common ground that the order that was revised by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the powers vested in it under S.64A of the Motor Vehicles Act was rendered by the R. T. A. on 13-2-1984. It was despatched to the 3rd respondent in the O.P.- the revision petitioner before the S.T.A.T. - on 21-2-1984. The 3rd respondent filed the revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 19-3-1984. This is admittedly within 30 days of the actual knowledge of the order passed by the RTA. A copy of the order sought to be revised should be filed along with the revision and it was so done. The learned Single Judge after a review of the relevant decisions held that the words occurring in S.64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, to the effect, "30 days from the date of the order'' means 30 days "from the date on which he had (the party had) actual or constructive knowledge of the order". The learned Single Judge, held that the time will begin to run only from the date on which the revision petitioner had actual or constructive knowledge of the order, as the case may be. In this view of the matter, the revision filed before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was held to be within time. On the merits, the learned Single Judge held that no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal ordering a remit. The Original Petition was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner in the Original petition has come up in Writ Appeal. Counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. C. Sankaran, very vehemently attacked the order of the learned Single Judge. Counsel contended that the time for filing the revision is only 30 days from the date of the order and in the context of S.64A, it cannot be said that the aggrieved party can file the revision within 30 days from the date on which he had actual or constructive knowledge of the order. S.64A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:

(3.) In this connection, we may usefully refer to an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in T. R. C. Nos. 15 and 16 of 1981 dated 7-6-1982. Speaking for the Bench, Poti, Ag. C. J., observed: