(1.) The short and sole point that arises in this petition is whether the time of four months granted under subrule (2) of Rule 219 of the Motor Vehicles Rules commences from the date of the receipt of the communication by the permittee or from the date on which the permit was issued. The petitioner herein had sought a pucca contract carriage permit which was granted by the resolution of the R. T. A. dt. 25-2-1982 and which was received by the Petitioner on 8-3-82. The R. T. A. who is 3rd respondent herein granted four months for the production of valid records for the grant of a permit from the date of receipt of the notice. Since the petitioner could not secure the necessary documents he sought for further extension of four months time. The R. T. A. on circulation passed a resolution on 22-10-82 granting four months time as sought for. The petitioner however, had no knowledge of it till the Secretary Communicated his proceedings on 27-10-82 stating that the R. T. A. passed resolution by circulation on 22-10-82 extending time for a further period of 4 months and directed the petitioner to produce the valid records on or before 7-11-82 failing which the sanction of the permit would be revoked. The petitioner received a copy of which on 27-10-82. Thereafter an oral representation was made to the respondents stating that the extention of four months time should commence only from the date of receipt of the order i. e. from 27-10-82 which was however negatived by saying that the time will commence from 7-7-82, Aggrieved against' the petitioner filed a revision before the S.T.A. which was dismissed. Hence this writ Petition.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under sub-rule (2) of Rule 219 the extension of time of four months must necessarily be from the date when the communication is received by the petitioner and not from the date when it was passed.
(3.) Before answering, sub-rule (2) of Rule 219 may be set out:-