o' DA w' BEF05E HQK*BI£ HIQH COtTRT ©FCHHATTESQARH AT EClASP^JR ^p, '23-^/2004 PSTI: TIONBR //.&- /^ • ^'\'*' c:' <l.' A.3? M/ ^ifl^ ^ffft '/l^ .d ^ ^^'. ^ .•••^ : Kash lumar Sharaa S/o,Shri Birga Prasad Sharma? ^/Q 429, Tadsaaodaa Nagar, Sl£ra> %hsil & ES.strict - Bila^ur (C.G.). Verst-is. ( (1) Regioaal Transpor-fc Aiafhority Ralpur (C.&.)« ^^' ^J (2) Secretary Begional T3?aQsport Auttority Mlaspar (C.G.) ^ ^l^ L^l5) Jfehadev Tra&^ort Service, ^" Sswtss Station BOad, Champa Dtstrf.et ^an^gir (C.G._). _.,_ ,, (4) S^te Tranaport Appellate lyibuiaaa, I yri.t petition imder Article 226/227 o£ COQstitatiQB of In«^La: XI-HG—78 ^if^N? R 'sn^T'^ij^ % \- MW^TW^T^i' ^n^n^-i^ '^hrn^, 'f^roy ..^..^>.-.^s..fcs4 ^: 200^ ^^: ('^^^) 1 ^^TW^tt^ ^T^I 8.2.2005 Shri Ajay Shrivastava/ Shri N.K. AgrawaL re^pondan+s No<l ayid 2. Shri B.K. Rawat, counsej The petitioner has 227 of the Con-stitution of 2Z.6.2004 (Annexure P-i) Tribuna!, Rdpur, whereby t!^ fijed-by the petitioner hereinj been mentioned that the on the route from routes of the petitioner and I have heard learned Leamed counsei for fiied an appjication before th| psrmit wo5 grant^d to refipc^ the petitioner came to kno<4 ther'e<sfter, he applied for th< the revision was fited on that this fact was not contr4 -ja.ap^ed^rils^iaaUuiglbAJ^.fa^ Shivrinar4y<in CQMnseI ttie 5.ft ^l^Nt^ TTTH^Tf ^ fe^t ^N^H '^3T^3T^r tounsel for the p©tition©r> ^put)/ Ayvocarte ©enerai for the State/ D^pl for respondent No.3. preflerred thb writ petjtion under Article 226/ ^ndia, being aggrieved by the order dated pjxssed by the Sl^te Transport AppetlatB |e learned Tribunal rejected the revi^lon |on the ground oT iimitation, and it has dso per^it of re^pondent No.3 is overlopping only to Pamgarh, and apart from •t4iat the r^spondent No<3 are differenf. for the parties, petitioner submitted that the petitioher i^ ST^T supported by an affjdavit that the sfipc^d^nt No.3 hereinon 29.9.2003, wherea^, abouf the grant of permit on 5.3.2004, e copy and received copy on 9.3.2004 and 5.ft,2004. Leamed counsei furfner submits Iverted by the respondents, therefore, the ^caapd^Abgu^ KN 'TSf ^TFff^PT, tS>Tl1y4l(c r®!<ll^^< . c^.p.^^^^y WHyir^<w^ •^2004- ^I^?T^^^ (<i?^<(?) 3?!^T^ Wi^ WT 3??t¥T^»^ \. ^nw^ft^ 3^1 Havina heard fearned counse record. The petitioner cldmed thij datsd 29.9.Z003 only on 5.3.2004 i] Th& learnad Tribund has observecj beiievabJe for the reason that the| bu^ on the ^aid route and respond^ 1.11.2003. Therefore, when the bu^ operating from Lli,2003, in the that this fact did not comc to thel reason assigned for rejection of t^ Limi'tation Act, appear^ to be ^ound No.3 startsd operating his bus on any stretch of imagination that knowiedQe. The limitation for fiJi,^ days, whereas the revision was fiied permit, Therefore, ths revision wasl L^arned counsel for the pe^ M.P. Hiqh Court in the matter of 1986-11 MPWN 147. But, the facts for the r'eason that in thd appiication for condonation of del4y <=hHl<^<fll 'RR^lf^ ft^ ^R^R ^ 3?ff?R an^r for the partie^, I hcxve perused th@ iibt he came to know about the order le. after five months and seven do^'s. that +hi$ fact, prima facie, is not Ipetitioner' wos aiready operating the |nt No.3 ^tarted oeerat&dlthe bu^ on a of re^pondent No.3 was continuousjy (t;jrcumstances, It ccyinot be beiieved notice of the pctjtioner hcreiin. The |e apptication under Section o of the and r@awnabie, and when re^pondent 11.11.2003, then it cannot ba said by |t did not com® to the petitioner's |d revision before the ST-AT was 30 about six months after the grant of hopeiessjy time barrsd. litioner relled on the decisbn of the Sjurssh Singh v. Dinanoth reported in |xbove ca^e is distin9uishable on the jtt case, the appiiconT submitted an under Section 5 of the Limltation O^p^j_pg^^o-4^o^L.^^o§rounci that he was opcrated upon for birth control and on L "g~sr ^j^Kn^i, ^Ti1<H^<o, [^<ni^^< .{^..:S>.:^S>&^1. 'w^n"i^r^"""""""""""""""""""""""7""^ 200^- ^?r XRRF (^i^<^r) ^I^T'^Tfe^W '^T^ni^^RN^ /ws •V.: ?omo i^HW^f^T 37T^l ~ 3> -I account of that h©wa5 indi^posed the period of limitoition, that fact Court cbserved that ths appiication th^ pr^^ant cas^, th<s facts ar^ et| respondent No.3 started opepating the petltioner came to know about Le, after four months he came to on The meritaiso as hos been obser^ the petjtioner and respondent N<| permtt, which has been granted to| Bhatgaon wherea^, the permit of and respondent No.3*s permit ov/&^ oniy between the pfaces from Shjvris| ThereforQ, in view of th^ petitioner has not been dbte to ordinary' jurisdiction by this Court of India, and to int^rfare with th4 Accordingjy, ttie writ peTition is disrr| Nas krfiow tNe <^Nf<t1<fM 'WT^ff "^ felSt 'tf^^R '^'37RiH3^[ ^nd couid not obtain the copy within not controverted, ItiQt is why the ought to have been aibwed. But, in Itiraly differ^nt. Wh^n th^ bu$ of |on 1.11.2003, it cannot be said that -j+ie permjt, jyi<fciji|i iig oniy on 5*3,2004 abouf the same. Even otherwise, ^ed bv the iearned Tribuna! routes of (3 arc entircly differ^nt/ and the respondent No.3, Is from Korbo to petltioner is from Biia^pur to Kera, !aps on th^ routs of +hs pstitioner stiarayan to Pamgarh i.e. 25 Kms. !., I am of the opinion that thc 2|<e out a case for invoking the extra i^nder ^rticie 227 of the Constitutlon order pa^sed by the STAT, Raipur- (jssed. NOCOSTS. moKe Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ^' .< ' ¥ Gjt.PRJ—FS/350—12/2000—50,000. /