KULDEEP SINGH Vs. S.T.A.T., PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 1.4.2011 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (Annexure P-2) rejecting the appeal of the petitioner being barred by limitation as also there being no merit in the same. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 5.7.1997 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, application of the petitioner for grant of one permit with four return trips daily to operate on Bassi-Bhadson via Bhumarsi route was rejected. Against the said rejection order, petitioner had preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.

(2.) Counsel contends that in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in Jagtar Singh v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, 2009 1 RCR(Civ) 928 decided on 30.1.2009 (Annexure P-3), the limitation would start from the date the order is conveyed to the petitioner or from the date when a constructive knowledge of the said order is said to have been obtained by the petitioner. In the present case, since the private operator, namely, Nabha Cooperative Society Ltd., Nabha-respondent No. 3 did not lift the permit, there was no occasion to the petitioner to get the constructive knowledge with regard to rejection of his application by the State Transport Commissioner. Had respondent No. 3 lifted the permit and started operation, the principles as laid down in the judgment passed by this in Jagtar Singh's case with regard to the constructive knowledge of the order rejecting his application would be applicable. He, accordingly, contends that the rejection of the appeal on the question of limitation, thus, is not sustainable. His further contention is that once the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the appeal of the petitioner is time barred, he could not have proceeded to decide the same on merits. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the observations made by this Court in CWP No. 2127 of 2011 Guru Anged Dev Bus Service Regd., Ludhiana v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, decided on 29.11.2011. He, accordingly, contends that the impugned order cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside. Respondent No. 3 has not come forward to contest the case.

(3.) On considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the prayer made in the writ petition for setting aside the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab cannot be accepted.