SHANKER LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana entered into a reciprocal transport agreement in respect of Sidhumukh to Bhiwani Via Tosham Inter-State route. THE said agreement was dated 5/6/7/8. 2. 1968 as stated in para 2 of the petition. As per the said agreement, daily one return trip would be performed by the nominees of the State of Rajasthan and accordingly, the competent authority in the State of Rajasthan sanctioned one stage carriage permit on the said route.

(2.) ON 3. 6. 96, the petitioner submitted an application for a permit in the prescribed form in respect of the aforesaid route. The copy of the said application dated 3. 6. 96 in the prescribed form is at Annex. 1. However, the said application of the petitioner was rejected by member, R. T. A. , Bikaner on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any proof regarding his residence nor he has produced any cash receipt regarding the payment of application fees.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal was of the opinion that though the order of rejection was passed by the R. T. A. , Bikaner way back on 11. 9. 96, the petitioner kept mum for nearly 13 months and applied for certified copy of the order only after new agreement was published in paper on 22. 7. 97. Even then, there was a delay of nearly 2 months and 8 days because the petitioner had applied for certified copy on 30. 9. 97. THE learned Tribunal further held that even after receiving the certified copy, the petitioner waited for 21 days and filed the appeal before it only on 22. 10. 97. THErefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation which was to be filed within 30 days from the date of order and in view of the judgment reported in the case of S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath (2), and it held that no benefit can be given to the petitioner and the appeal was required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. THE learned Tribunal also observed that the new agreement was arrived at between the State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana on 15. 7. 97 which was published in paper on 22. 7. 97 and the petitioner submitted an application on 3. 6. 96, therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Obali Swami Naidu vs. Addl. S. T. A. T. Madras (3), it held that the permit cannot be issued under the new agreement because the petitioner had applied for permit under the old agreement of 1968. Thus, on merits also, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioner had no case. However, in the operative part of the order, the Tribunal has observed that the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation.