HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 5971 of 2007 % [9% (7mm PETITIONER : Shabbir Ali, aged about 30 years, S/é. Shri V Sayyad Ahmad Ali, r/o. C-18, Sector—5, Devendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS State Transport Appellata Tribunal, Raipur (CG). D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, CG. _ " " 3. Kanker Roadways, Civil Line, Raipur (CG) 2. Regional Transport Authority Room No.288, (Intervener before STAT). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : ‘Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Deputy Government Advocate for the State. Shri F.S. Khare, counsel for the respondent No.3 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19th day of November, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 27-7—2007 (Annexurc P/3), passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'STAT') in appeal No.37/2007, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rej ected as being time barred. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner filed an appeal before the STAT against the order dated 13-1 l- 2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2 in an application made by the respondent No.3. The petitioner filed the said appeal before the STAT beyond the period of 30 days on 5-4-2007 along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner in his application stated that the petitioner was not informed about the hearing of the application and the order passed thereon. The petitioner came to know about the order on 22-2—2007 in the office of the espondent No.2. The petitioner immediately made an application for certified copy of the order which was made available to the petitioner on 7-3-2007. The petitioner immediately filed an appeal on 5-4—2007 within r a period of thirty daysx The STAT recorded the finding that the petitioner has made an application for certified copy of the order on 21-2— 2007, but in the application, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the respondent No.2 on 22-2- 2007. Therefore, the statement of the petitioner made in the application is incredible and as such application for condonation of delay was rejected. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. Thus, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Section 74(3) of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 the Transport Authority is under an obligation to communicate the order passed by the authority to the parties. 4. Be-that as it may, there is a delay of 15 days, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is a provision for condonation of delay by the STAT. The petitioner has coniiised with regard to the date it may be 21-2-2007 or 22-2—2007, but no irreparable loss, inconvenience or prejudice would be caused to the respondent , if delay of 15 days in entertaining the appeal is condoned. Even otherwise, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 herein has no strong objection to condonation of the delay. Thus, delay in filing the appeal before the STAT is condoned. The matter is remanded to the STAT for fresh hearing on merit. Sdl— . Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 5. The petition is accordingly disposed of.