A M NAVEEN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed for the following relief: -

(2.) The petitioner claims that he is an inter State carriage operator, operating his vehicle on the route Tiruthani to Panapakkam via, Vanganoor, R. K. Pet, Sholinghur, Banavaram Kaveripakkam and Ocheri, that the vehicle was checked on 9-12-1990 at 5.55 p.m. by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Kancheepuram at 71/6 kms. on Madras-Vellore road and noticed certain irregularities for which after issuing a show cause notice and considering the representation, the permit of the petitioner was suspended for a period of ten days with option to compound at the rate of Rs.300/- per day. The proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority dated 9-3-1994 awarding, suspension is said to have been received on 29-3-1994 and it is stated that since the petitioner was ill, the appeal could not be filed within time viz., within the period of 30 days prescribed therefor. The petitioner would state in the affidavit that since the Tribunal has taken the view in similar matters that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will lave,. no application to enable any condonation of delay in view of Rule 157(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the petitioner has approached this Court directly without going before the Tribunal seeking for a declaration as notice above.

(3.) Miss. Vedavalle, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the provisions of Rule 157(3) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation, Act, 1963 in respect of appeals filed under the said Rule cannot be applied to appeals filed under Section 89(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. This submission is based on the assumption that Rule 157(3) will have applications only to appeals filed by virtue of 'the prescription of illustrative cases under Section 89(1)(g) and provisions contained in Rule 157(2) and not to appeals filed by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 89(1) of the Act. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that inasmuch as the Act, as such does not expressly exclude the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1963, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the appeals filed invoking the provisions of Section 89(1) of the Act. The learned counsel relied upon the decision reported in SIR 1976 SC 105 :1976 Cri LJ 179 (Mangu, Ram v. Delhi Municipality) in support of her contention that unless specifically excluded, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the filing of a belated appeal by virtue of Section 29(2) of 1963 Act. The further contention of the learned counsel is that when the provisions of the Act as such did not exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Rules cannot do so and doing so by Rules would amount to exceeding the very scope of the rule making powers under the Act. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but unable to countenance any one of them, for the reasons to be set forth hereinafter. 3A. Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for any person aggrieved against various kinds of orders or proceedings illustrated in Clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1). While Clauses (a) to (f) itself stipulate the proceedings, that can be challenged in appeal either with reference to the provision of the Act under which they were passed or the nature of the order, Clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 89 provides and enables the Rule Making Authority to prescribe the other categories of order also with reference to which an appeal can be filed under Section 89. Consequently, an appeal filed availing of the provisions contained under Section 89 and the various limbs of the Section read with relevant rules including the one made with reference to clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 89 has to be considered to be an appeal filed only under Section 89 of the Act and it is misnomer to call the categories of appeals filed pursuant to a prescription made under clause (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 89 as appeals made under the Rules and try to distinguish them as different kinds of appeals filed otherwise under the statute alone. The resultant provision in my view, is that any appeal filed under the various Clauses of sub-section (1) of Section 89 read with the rules made therefor including the rule traceable to Section 89(l)(g), shall be considered to be appeal filed under the provisions of Section 89 only. While that be the position, I am unable to appreciate the difference or distinction sought to be made out by the learned counsel that different considerations should weigh with appeals filed invoking the Rules made under Section 89(1)(g) of the Act and the other appeals of filed either of the sub-clauses of sub-section (1) Section 89 of the Act, in the matter of application of Rule 157(3) the Tamil Nadu Rules.