- (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, dated 21-11-1973 dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by time.
(2.) THE petitioner made an application for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on Kuru Tilari via Babatpur crossing route. The Regional Transport Authority Varanasi, rejected the petitioner's application by its order dated 21-9-1973. The order was, however, not communicated to the petitioner as required by Section 57 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner, however, made an application on 29- 9-1973 for obtaining a certified copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The copy was prepared and delivered to the petitioner on 8-10-1973. The petitioner thereupon presented his appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 8-11-1973. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 21-11-1973 on the ground that it was barred by time. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down that any aggrieved person may file appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority within the time prescribed. Rule 72 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 framed under the Act provides that an appeal under Section 64 of the Act against the order of the Regional Transport Authority may be filed within 30 days of the receipt of such order and it must be accompanied by a certified copy of that order. Rule 72 thus lays down that appeal should be filed within 30 days of the receipt of the order of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 57 (7) of the Act which requires service of an order in writing on the party whose application may be rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The period of limitation would thus commence only after a copy of the order is served by the Regional Transport Authority as contemplated by Section 57 (7) of the Act. In the instant case the Regional Transport Authority did not comply with the requirements of Section 57 (7) of the Act as no copy of the order was served on the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner, however, obtained a certified copy of the order and filed the appeal. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order, (sic) and it refused to exclude the time spent by the petitioner in obtaining the certified copy. In my opinion the Appellate Tribunal committed a manifest error of law. It is a settled principle that where memorandum of appeal is required to be accompanied by a certified copy of the order against which appeal is preferred the time taken in obtaining certified copy is required to be excluded in calculating the period of limitation. In Addl. Collector of Customs v. M/s Best and Co., AIR 1966 SC 1713, it was held that section 12 (2) (3) of the Limitation Act contains a positive direction for excluding the time taken in obtaining the copy of the judgment and decree or order as the case may be, more so in a case where the rules require that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied with a certified copy of the order. As already noted Section 64 of the Act read with Rule 72 requires that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied with a certified copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority. In the circumstances the law laid down by the Supreme Court is fully applicable to the instant case and the petitioner was entitled to exclude the time spent in obtaining certified copy of the order of the Regional Transport Authority.;