B. N. Sapru, J. - (1.) :-
(2.) THE petitioner was granted a stage carriage permit on Baksa-Rajapur via Teji Bazar and Maharajganj route. An application of the respondent no. 3, Dhurendra Singh, was rejected on the ground that it was barred by time, while the application of Ram Adhar Singh, the respondent no. 4, was rejected after considering the merits by the Regional Transport Authority. The respondents nos. 3 and 4 preferred appeals. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent no. 3 as also of the Respondent no. 4. It was held that the Regional Transport Authority has wrongly rejected the appeal of Dhurendra Singh as barred by time. It was also held by the Tribunal that an application made after the period prescribed in the notification asking for an application could be entertained. The learned Tribunal followed a decision of this Court in Writ Petition no. 421 of 1966, M/s. Rampur State Transport Co-operative Society, Kampur v. Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly. That case was considered by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5190 of 1978, Vinod Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, decided on 14-2-1979 and it has been held that an application filed after the date for making the application mentioned in the notification under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act had expired, could not be entertained. The Bench followed a decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 762 of 1963, Purshottam Bhai Punam Bhai Patel v. State Transport Appellate Authority, M. P., decided on 14-4-64. The Bench also observed that in view of the Supreme Court's Judgment the decision referred to earlier does not lay down the correct law.
(3.) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is set aside and State Transport Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal of the respondent no. 4, Ram Adhar Singh, afresh. The Tribunal should try and dispose of the appeal within four months of the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The appeal of the respondent no. 3 Dhurendra Singh, cannot be heard afresh because it is held to be barred by limitation. There will be no order as to costs. The interim order dated 6-8-1984 is discharged. Petition allowed.;