SHANMUGHAM TRANSPORTS P Vs. V KUNJU CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchi, proposed to open a new route between Musiri and Eragudi and invited applications for the grant of a permit to run a bus on that route. There were 24 applications and the authority granted the permit to the petitioner. There of the disappointed applicants including the first respondent appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal of the first respondent and set aside the permit granted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon filed a write petition No. 787 of 1961 and another appellant before the Tribunal filed W. P. 197 of 1962. Both these petitions were allowed and the writ appeals were also dismissed. The Tribunal later re-heard the appeals and on 30-11-1966 again set aside the grant of the permit granted to the petitioner and awarded it to the first respondent. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Tribunal.

(2.) THE only point argued before this court was that the appeal filed by the first respondent before the Tribunal was not in times

(3.) THE original order of the Regional Transport Authority was dated 30-12-1961. That order was received by the first respondent either on 20-1-1961 or on 6-21961. The exact date on which it was received by the first respondent does not make any difference to the decision as the appeal was filed on 13-2-1961. It was filed without the certified copy of the Regional Transport Authority's order as required under the rules. On 22-2-1961, the Tribunal returned the appeal for representation on or before 6-3-1961. On that date the first respondent represented it with a request for grant of time for two more weeks for compliance. Somehow the office of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal seems to have overlooked the request and did not return it. On 30-3-1961, the original order of the Regional Transport Authority was filed. When the question was taken up before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the question of limitation was specifically raised. It should also be mentioned that in the earlier writ proceedings before this court the question of limitation was specifically left open. Before the Tribunal, the same arguments that were advanced before this court, seem to have been urged, but the Tribunal held that the appeal was in time. Therefrom, the matter may be discussed here on its merits and it is not necessary to go into the reasons given by the Tribunal itself for holding that the appeal was in time.