JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it arises out of the following circumstances. Petitioners Jagdish Prasad and Sheolal hold one non -temporary permit on Mahuwa Deeg route since 1967. Two applications were published for the grant of non -temporary permits on the route, one was of the third respondent Kishanlal Brijeshkumar and the second application was of one Kalyan Sahai. The petitioners filed objections against the grant of permit to the third respondent on 24 -2 -1968. According to the petitioners the certified copy of the said objections is on record and marked Annexure Ex.P/2 It has been alleged by the petitioners that the copy of these objections was also sent to Kishanlal Brijeshkumar under a certificate of posting on 23 -2 -1968. The Regional Transport Authority Jaipur, vide its resolution No. 6 item No. 5/2 dated 6 -5 -1969 granted one non -temporary permit to Kishanlal Brijeshkumar and the application of Kalyan Sahai was rejected. The presence of the petitioner as objectors has been recorded in the order and they were heard. Being aggrieved of this order the petitioners preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) on 4.6.1989. The original certificate of posting was submitted along with the memo of appeal and it was also accompanied by an affidavit of Jagdish Prasad, saying that the appellants submitted objections in writing against the application of Kishanlal Brijeshkumar within the time allowed and they also sent a copy of the same to them under a certificate of posting on 23rd February, 1968. The petitioners obtained an ad -interim order from the Tribunal. This stay order was confirmed by the tribunal after hearing Kishanlal Brijeshkumar. In compliance with the stay order the permit was not obtained by them. This appeal was not heard for quite a long time On 24.1.1973 an affidavit was filed by Kishan Lal before the Tribunal contending that the deponent (Kishanlal) did not receive any objections against his application for the grant of nonetemporary permit on Mahuwa Deeg route. This statement of Kishanlal was again controverted by the affidavit of Jagdishprasad filed by him on 31st January, 1973. The appeal was heard and the tribunal held that the mere sending of the objections by a certificate of posting was not enough to hold that the objections were received by Kishanlal Brijeshkumar on the interpretation of Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The tribunal was of the opinion that it was the duty of the appellant to prove that the copy of the objections had reached the hands of the applicant. Since the requirement of Section 57(4) was not filfilled, he dismissed the appeal as not maintainable within the meaning of Section 64(1) of the Act. It is this order that has been challenged before me by the petitioners.

(2.) MR . Vyas learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the tribunal has misconstrued the provisions of Section 57(4) of the Act. He has also urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was clearly established that the third respondent received the copy of the respresentation sent by the petitioners by certificate of poseing. On the other hand, Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel representing Kishanlal Brijeshkumar, respondent No. 3, has supported the interpretation of Section 57(4) as put by the Tribunal. He has also referred to K. Nirasimiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and Ors. 1965 (1) SCJ 552 in addition to Single Bench Decision of this Court in Murari Lal Agarwat v. The Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2134 of 1970, decided on 7th December, 1972) referred to by the Tribunal Mr. Vyas has placed reliance on M A. Saddiqui v. Tribunal of S.T.A. Rajasthan 1959 RLW 281 and an unreported Single Bench decision of this Court Manimal Tejmal v. The Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur and Ors. (S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 169 of 1971, decided on 20 -11 -1972).

(3.) IN this case a copy of the objections was sent to the third respondent by post under a certificate of posting dated 23 -2 -68 It has been admitted by Mr. Maheshwari that the certificate of posting bears the right address of the applicant, Here reference may also be made to Harihar Banerji and Ors. v. Ramshashi Roy and Ors. AIR 1918 PC 102. Their Lordships of the Privy Council observed: If a letter properly directed, containing a notice to quit, is proved to have been put into the post office, it is presumed that the letter reached the destination at the proper time according to the regular course of business of the post office, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed and that presumption would apply with still greater force to letters which the sender has taken the precaution to register, and is not rebutted bat strengthened by the fact that a receipt for the letter is produced signed on behelf of the addressee by some person other than the addressee himself. According to this authority the copy of the representation which was sent to the third respondent on 23 -2 -1968 at their address shall be presumed to have reached its destination and received by the addressee in regular course of business of the post office. Section 57(4) cannot be construed to mean that the person making the representation must show by positive evidence that the representation reached the hands of the person against whom it was made. Whether copy of representation has been furnished simultaneously in a given case within the meaning of the Sub -section (4) of Section 57, depends upon the facts and the circumstances of that case.