BALBIR SINGH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, UPSRTC AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A permit to ply a bus was given to the Petitioner prior to creation of the State of Uttarakhand. In terms of the said permit, the Petitioner could ply the bus, in question, between Haldwani and Moradabad -Nagina. After creation of the State of Uttarakhand, a part of the said route fell within the territory of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the remaining part in the State of Uttarakhand. The part of said route, falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh as also part of the said route falling within the State of Uttarakhand, are more than 16 kilometres in distance. In accordance with the directions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, in relation to such routes, there is a requirement of agreement between the States, in question. By an order dated 11.4.2002, it was held by the motor vehicles authorities of the State of Uttarakhand that in respect of the route, in question, the motor vehicles authorities of the State of Uttar Pradesh demanded payment of a sum of Rs. 60,364/ - and that the Petitioner is required to pay the same. This demand of the motor vehicles authorities of the State of Uttarakhand was challenged in the writ petition.

(2.) ON the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 28.6.2002 staying recovery of the said amount. After the said interim order was obtained, Petitioner forgot about the litigation. He permitted the writ petition to be dismissed for default on 7.11.2006. On 8.6.2011, Petitioner filed an application for restoration of the writ petition. In that application, it was stated that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the order of the dismissal dated 7.11.2006 and when the Petitioner came to this Court and enquired about his case, he came to know of the order dated 7.11.2006. Since there has been a delay of 1641 days in filing the restoration application, Petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing restoration application. In that application too, apart from saying that the Petitioner had no knowledge of the order of dismissal dated 7.11.2006, until he came to Court on 6.6.2011, nothing has been stated.

(3.) AS aforesaid, by a fiction of law, the route permit of the Petitioner came to an end and, accordingly, if for keeping the same alive, a demand for payment of extra sum of money is made, the Petitioner could not avoid to pay the same. There is, therefore, no merit also in the writ petition and, accordingly, interest of justice would not permit us to allow the application for condonation of delay. We, accordingly, dismiss the same. In consequence thereof, the restoration application and the writ petition are dismissed.