- (1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thirteen days delay in preferring the Transport Appeal No. 3 of 2009 is not condoned by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi and he has rejected the Transport Appeal No. 3 of 2009, preferred by the present petitioner vide order dated 23rd March, 2009, which is at Annexure-2 to the memo of petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had applied for getting permission for plying a motor vehicle under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 17th November, 2008. His application has been dismissed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 21st November, 2008. The said dismissal order is dehors the facts and law and is in violation of principles of natural justice and, hence, the Transport Appeal No. 3 of 2009 was instituted by the present petitioner under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The period of limitation to prefer an appeal is thirty days, but, the appeal was preferred on 6th March, 2009 and as stated in the impugned order, there is a delay of only thirteen days after getting the certified copies of the order passed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi. This delay has not been condoned without appreciating the fact that the reasons stated in the delay condonation application, which is illness of the petitioner, is a reasonable reason for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that looking to Rule 111(4) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992, the proviso is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the case of the petitioner is for getting permission for plying a motor vehicle and, therefore, as per Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay Sections 4 to Section 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable. This aspect of the matter has been lost sight of by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi and, hence, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2009 of non-condonation of delay, deserves to be quashed and set aside by condoning the delay of thirteen days. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that let a direction be given to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide the Transport Appeal No. 3 of 2009 on merits, within stipulated time and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, who has submitted that the petitioner has failed to explain the delay and, therefore, the period of delay in preferring the Transport Appeal No. 3 of 2009, has not been condoned. The period for preferring an appeal, prescribed under the law, is thirty days. The State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi has passed the order of dismissal on an application for getting permission for plying a motor vehicle on 21st November, 2008 and the appeal has been preferred as on much belated stage, therefore, the delay has not been condoned by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi. No error has been committed by the State Transport Authority Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of thirteen days and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 23rd March, 2009 (Annexure-2 to the memo of petition) mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) It appears that the present petitioner had applied for getting permission for plying a motor vehicle under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 17th November, 2008. (ii) It also appears that the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi has dismissed the aforesaid application, preferred by the petitioner on 21st November, 2008 and the petitioner is of the opinion that this dismissal is dehors the facts and law and is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring an appeal. (iii) It further appears that the petitioner had preferred Transfer Appeal No. 3 of 2009 under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi. (iv) It appears that the appeal ought to be preferred within thirty days from receiving the copy of the order passed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi, but, the appeal was preferred on 6th March, 2009 and looking to the impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi, it appears that there was delay of only thirteen days. (v) Looking to the reasons canvassed by the present petitioner (original appellant), it appears that due to sickness, the delay of thirteen days has been caused in preferring the appeal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jharkhand, Ranchi ought to have condoned the delay of thirteen days. The reasons canvassed by the petitioner is a reasonable reason for condonation of delay. It appears that the Appellate Tribunal has passed the order mechanically and without any application of mind. Thirteen days delay caused by a citizen in preferring an appeal and that too because of sickness, ought to have been condoned by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has referred several decisions of criminal matters under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code etc., which are not at all useful and relevant. Looking to the provisions of Rule 111(4) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 to be read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 4 - 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to the transport appeal, preferred under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, when application for getting permission for plying a motor vehicle has been dismissed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi.;