B DHANALAKSHMI Vs. M SHAJAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a common order made in W.A. Nos. 1987 to 1993 of 2003, we have set aside the grant made in favour of the grantees, viz., the contesting respondents in W.A. Nos. 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1993 of 2003. We have dismissed W.A. No. 1992 of 2003 challenging the grant in respect of the grantee. viz., the contesting respondent. The grantees, whose grants-were set aside by our order, have filed Review Application Nos. 43 to 48 of 2004. The appellant in W.A. No. 1992 of 2003 has filed Review Application No. 70 of 2004.

(2.) The first respondent in W.A. Nos. 1987 and 1990 of 2003 has filed Review Application Nos. 43 and 46 of 2004 respectively. Mr. R. Natesan, learned counsel appearing for the review applicants would submit that certain periods taken by the appellants were not taken into consideration, while computing the period of 30 days. In the event, those periods are also computed, the revision petitions filed by the appellants before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal would be barred by limitation. To sustain the said argument, the learned counsel would submit that the copy applications were returned in both the cases on 16-8-2001 and the appellants have filed writ petitions for issue of the copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority only on 5-9-2001 and there is a delay of 20 days. This Court had taken into consideration the eight days delay taken by the appellants viz., the period between 23-7-2001, the date on which the notice of timing conference was served on the Bus Owners' Association and 1-8-2001, the date on which the copy applications were made. This Court has also taken into consideration a further period of delay on the part of the appellant between 25-9-2001, the date on which the copy was furnished on the appellants and 3-10-2001, the date on which, the revision petition was filed. In the event, this 20 days is also included the total number of days would come to 36. In that event, the revision petitions are beyond the period of 30 days and consequently, the revisions are barred by limitation. Consequently, the writ appeals ought to have been dismissed.

(3.) Mrs. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the Review Applicants in Rev. Appln. No. 44 of 2004 filed against the order in W.A. No. 1988, Rev. Appln. No. 45 of 2004 filed against the order in W.A. No. 1989 Revn. Appln. 47 filed as against the order in W.A. No. 1991 and Rev. Appl. No. 48 filed against the order in W.A. No. 1993 of 2003 would submit that insofar as W.A. No. 1988 of 2003 is concerned, the copy application was returned on 17-8-2001 and the writ appeal was filed on 3-9-2001, after a delay of 16 days. She would also submit that the copy of the order was made ready on 5-9-2001 and the copy application was made ready on 11-9-2001 and the appellant has taken delivery only on 25-9-2001. In that process, there is a delay of 14 days. The learned counsel would therefore submit that 16 days and 14 days put together, 30 days in addition to the 9 days taken by the appellant from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and the filing of the revision petition. Hence, the total" number of days delay is 39. In that event, the revision petition is beyond the period of 30 days and accordingly, the revision itself is barred by limitation. She would also submit that though the vehicle was put into operation on road on 12-1-2001, the said date is mentioned in the order as 19-7-2001, which is factually incorrect. If the date 12-1-2001 is taken as the date of knowledge, the revision is barred by time. For the said reason, the writ appeal ought to have been dismissed.