IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14463 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 05.03.2008 Pargat Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.G. Masih, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. P.S. Bawa, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 1.2.2005 passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as `the RTA'), whereby one contract carriage passenger tempo permit on Hoshiarpur to Salimpur Badiala via Bassi Daulat Khan, Maruli, Brahmana, Kampur, Atalgarh, Memowal, Badiala, Salimpur route (hereinafter referred to as `the route in question') has been granted in favour of Gurnam Singh (respondent No.4 herein); and the order dated CWP No. 14463 of 2007 -2- 2.11.2006, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the Appellate Tribunal'), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. In the present case, respondent No.4 applied for the grant of contract carriage passenger tempo permit on the route in question. His application was processed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. The traffic assessment of the route in question was assessed by the District Transport Officer, Hoshiarpur, and he recommended for the grant of permit on the route in question in public interest. Thereafter, the objections were invited by publishing a notice in the Motor Transport Gazette, Weekly, Chandigarh dated 22.11.2004. Thereupon, the petitioner and one Charanjit Singh filed objections for the grant of aforesaid permit stating that since the sufficient tempo services were already in operation on the portion of the route in question, therefore, there was no need to introduce a new tempo service. The RTA, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and hearing the concerned parties, while agreeing with the recommendations made by the survey officer that the route in question will prove to be economically viable and declining the objections filed by the petitioner, granted the aforesaid permit to respondent No.4. A person aggrieved against the order of grant of a permit can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 89 of the Act CWP No. 14463 of 2007 -3- within a period of 30 days. The petitioner, instead of filing appeal against the order of the RTA dated 1.2.2005, straight way filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9566 of 2005 on 13.6.2005, much after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal. Since the alternative remedy of appeal was available, the petitioner got the said writ petition dismissed as withdrawn on 23.5.2006 with a view to avail the remedy of appeal. Subsequently, on 6.6.2006, he filed appeal against the said order dated 1.2.2005, along with an application for condonation of delay. The said appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground of limitation, while holding that even if the period spent by the petitioner before this Court in prosecuting the CWP is excluded for computing the period of limitation, even then the appeal could not be said to be filed within limitation. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Tribunal has acted illegally while not properly considering the application of the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. He submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned and his appeal should have been decided on merits. We do not find any merit in the contention of counsel for the petitioner. In this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was bonafidely and diligently pursuing the remedy before the wrong court. Section 89 of the Act clearly provides that against the order of granting permit under the Act, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal. In view of the clear provision, CWP No. 14463 of 2007 -4- there was no justification and reason with the petitioner to straight way challenge the order of granting permit by the RTA, by filing a writ petition. Even if the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing writ petition before this Court is excluded, even then the appeal filed by him was barred by limitation. Undisputedly, the appeal could have been filed within a period of 30 days. When against the order dated 1.2.2005, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 13.6.2005, the period of limitation had already expired. The petitioner could not explain the said delay before the Appellate Tribunal. He has not even placed on record certified copy of the order dated 1.2.2005 to show as to when he received the same. Keeping in view all these facts, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere in the said order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 05, 2008 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ndj JUDGE