Civil Writ Petition No. 17360 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 17360 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.11.2009 The Kudal Barnal Co-operative Transport Society Limited, Bhiwani …Petitioner Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Haryana at Hisar and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. Copy of petition has been supplied to Mr. Nehra. On 8.4.2008, a Division Bench of this Court, had passed the following order:- “Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the observation made in the impugned order that appeal was not maintainable, petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to avail the remedy of revision. Civil Writ Petition No. 17360 of 2009 2 Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty”. In pursuance of this order, petitioner had filed a revision petition. Along with revision petition, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. Prayer for condonation of delay has been declined by observing as under:- “Issue No.1 8. The petition on the face of it is barred by limitation. No copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority is attached with the file. Despite there being findings to the effect that the appeal is not maintainable, the petitioner has not opted to file revision but filed writ petition. That being so, time spent in pursuing the writ petition independently cannot be condoned for the purpose of limitation. Moreover, when both the societies have been allowed to operate on the particular route prima facie there being no legality I do not want to tilt balance in favour of the petitioner so as to be liberal for condonation of delay. Thus, I hold that there are not sufficient grounds to condone the delay. As such, this issue is decided against the petitioner”. This Court is of the view that Revisional Authority should not have formulated a view which is too technical in nature and ought to have decided the revision petition on merits. Petitioner was relegated to revisional jurisdiction by this Court. Due credence should have been Civil Writ Petition No. 17360 of 2009 3 given to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, in these circumstances, order (Annexure P10) is set aside to the extent that delay in fling the revision petition shall be construed to have been condoned and the revision petition shall be decided on merits. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authorities. The parties shall appear before the Revisional Authority on 2.12.2009. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 12, 2009 “DK”