JAGTAR SINGH Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Rule 85 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter called the 'rules') against an order passed by the State or Regional Transport authority commences from the date of receipt of the said order or the date on which the aggrieved party acquires actual or constructive knowledge about the making thereof. Rule 85 of the Rules reads as under :-

(2.) A plain reading of the above would show that the remedy by way of an appeal against an order passed by the State regional Transport Authority is available to the party aggrieved of any such order for a period of 30 days from the date of the "receipt of the order". That the period of limitation should start running not from the date of the order but from the date of the "receipt of the order" is somewhat unusual. Generally the Statutes provide for the period of limitation to be reckoned from the date the order under challenge is passed. The rationale behind the peculiarity of the rule is, however, abundantly clear from the second proviso to Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'act'), which enjoins upon the authority passing an order refusing to grant a permit, the duty to furnish to the applicant in writing "its reasons for refusal of the same". The second proviso reads as under :-

(3.) A combined reading of Sections 80, 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 85 of the Rules makes it manifest that the State or Regional Transport Authority passing an order appealable under Section 89 is by reason of Second proviso to Section 80 (2)obliged to provide to the applicant whose application has been declined, the reasons in writing for such refusal. This implies that the State or Regional Transport Authority is required to communicate any order made by it that refuses an application for grant of a permit of any kind, which order in turn is required to contain reasons for such refusal. In an ideal situation, no sooner an order is passed by the State or Regional Transport authority against an application refusing to grant a permit of any kind under the Act, the same must be communicated to the party seeking such permit, who can then resort to the remedy of an appeal under section 89 of the Act open to it within the time stipulated under Rule 85 of the Rules. It is the failure of the State or Regional Transport authorities to comply with that requirement that has given rise to considerable litigation in this Court, in which the aggrieved parties have often claimed that they did not have any knowledge of the passing of the order as the order in question was never communicated to them. The practice of not communicating the order to the parties concerned was noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in Banda Bahadur Highways private Limited, Ludhiana v. State Transport appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others, Civil writ Petition No. 9982 of 1996 disposed of on 16-7-1997 and the need for communication of the order emphasized in the following passage :-