C.W.P No. 17572 of 2007 ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P No. 17572 of 2007
Date of decision : September 16, 2008
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
...... Petitioner
through Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate
v.
Shri Sukhchain Singh & others,
...... Respondents
through Mr.S.K.Laddi, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G Pb
for respondent No.4.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
***
AJAY TEWARI, J
Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated 14.2.2003
and 12.4.2006 dismissing the revision of the petitioner as barred by
limitation.
Respondent No.4, vide order dated 14.2.2003, allowed
respondents No.1 to 3 one stage carriage permit for plying two return trips
daily on Sangrur-Lakhiwal via Sunam, Cheema, Satouj, Budhlada, Boha
route from Cheema to Lakhiwal and extension of the remaining route upto
Bhikhi.
The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.5 against
the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the impugned order as barred
C.W.P No. 17572 of 2007 ::2::
by limitation.
As per facts noticed in para 5 of the impugned order,
respondent No.4 had passed the order on 14.2.2003. The General Manager
of the petitioner came to know of the order in the last week of October 2004
and immediately applied for a certified copy of the same, which was
supplied on 29.10.2004. The revision was filed on 29.11.2004. The
limitation prescribed is 30 days. There was thus delay of about one year
nine months and fifteen days.
In the writ petition it is stated that the appeal (treated as
revision lateron) was filed soon after getting the copy of the order dated
14.2.2003 and delay was for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner.
The petitioner was not aware of the impugned order.
We find that delay was not long and taking a pragmatic view,
delay should have been condoned particularly when the Tribunal has
recorded a finding on merits in favour of the petitioner.
We are of the view that the Tribunal should have condoned the
delay and heard the revision on merits. Consequently, we allow this writ
petition and quash the impugned order dated 12.4.2006 and direct the
Tribunal to decide the matter on merits afresh in accordance with law.
Parties will appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings
on 17.11.2008.
( AJAY TEWARI )
JUDGE
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
September 16, 2008
'kk'