^n^r^Tf^ri^ ^IT^TTOT $h^Jcb 3^5T ^TFTT^T, ^xn'M^KS, (si^l^y (^) Nl^dl <h*<|ck" •W^ 200 3iTt?T V (^cl^^) ^«iiw<if^a ^n^r HIGH COURT OF C3(1HATTISGAPJi AT BILASPUR S,B. HOrBLE MISHRA,.,J WRIT PETITION Petlfeio^er Shaj|lendra Tanirakai^ j S/o pri Madho Prasad Tamrakar, j Age4 about : 35 years, R/o|\7illage Mandai Paiidariya Disttict Rajnaiidga.cn (C,G.) Versiis | ResposadeHts j 1, j Statt J Raq.jui ^ Traiisport Appellate Tribunal C,G. 1 3. ! Mirv |S/0 IR/O 1 Saii 4.3.2008 1 & 2. Mr. B.K. Chakraboi-U^ Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, P. By tliis petition underj tlie petitioner has iBipugne| (AnnexTire-P/1) whereby tl^ chl^f<rt<fll 'HW^ff ^ f^st <F3l^l< ^ 37RFT 3TT^T 122T ART.l N0. 1428/2008 2. Regi^nal Transport Authority j Ra4|ur (CG) ?sli Kumai Tami'akai Late Raai Prasacl Tanirakar Parpodi, Tahsil, District Durg (CG) counsel for tfae petitioner, ^iicl La^Tycr tbr Statc/rcspoudcuts No. Ai-ticle 227 ofthe Constitutiou oflndia 1 the order dated 13th Febmar^- 2008 State Traasport Appellate Tribuu^ ^TfITA? ^ite g^JTT^T, n^RT^TRT—FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. t- —78 3^5T ^||^||0^, ^xQ-M^KS, Tei^t'y^ Nl*4di (bNldb ^ 200 ^i^T?7r1:^ti^' ^^T ^[i^¥f^^ii<^ 3?yt?T'<^F^ ( 4<s(l^<i^) '^T?W^?I^^1^1 resDondent No, 1, has No. 3, which was admitledlv prescribed uiider Sectio^. ^llowed tlie appeal prefeiTed by respondeiit t|edly filed beyond the period of 30 days as 90 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Froin perusal o^ respoiident No. 3 hacl i| No. 2 by filiiis a Writ Pe] was disriiissed by this (j of Aniiexure P/4 011 sta.tu.ton' rem.edv ao.cl 11 the altemative st-atutd provisions of law. The above fact condoued th^ The aTgumeiit. ad\| is that respondent No. by the High Court aiid fllmg the appeal.aiicl o] valid explpjiiatioii was o\ ofdelayio. filhig tlie ap^ I have heard leaj pe.rused the im.piigne.d ^ 2007 passed by this Co^ ^8^t<?1<iil ^W^lf ^f^^l <fa^S< ^^Rpi^n^r the impugued order it appears that ijnipugned tiie order passed by respondent |tition (C) No. 6207/07. However, th-e same 'ourt vide order dated 14th Noveiiiber 2007 [fclie groiind of availability of altema.tive [e was graiited llberty to take • recoiirse to |n7 remedv availabfe to him uncler tlie respoiident No. 1 llereiii, coiisideriiig the delay in filuig the appea.1, aiiced by leamed coiuisel for the petitiouer has wrongly iiiterpreted the order passed t was dzifrv boiiiid to coiisider the .delav iii Light to have dismissed the appeal as n.0 Terecl by respoiident. No. 3 for conclonation eal. iied counsel for tlie petitioner aiicl have rder as also the order dated 14th Noveniber irt. g) 3^cT ^j^ll^, ^Tfl<rl41<o, ^<^1^^< 'RPT^T shNlch ^ 20Q 31I^?T ^W (J^^^) ^H^T^T R^i4> ^^T3?T^T 5b^|ch »c/ ^?ITW^rf^T 3?I^T After going through the ii| order datecl 14th November 200/'?| No.6207/07, I am oftlie opinion| coianiitted aiiy jurisdictional concioniiig tlie delay iu preferr| failiire dfjustice or grave iiijust| Article 227 of&e Constitzition oi| i4ipugned order and iii view of the passed by Uiis Court in \¥,P, (C) |tliat the respondent No. 1 has not iii passirig the impugned order appeal, which may occasiou |ce, warraiitio.g interference uiider India. e.1TDr errtii In the resiilt the instaut saixie desen7e.s to be dismissed ^ accordingly,. disniissed, ct>i^f<n<41Ti TiTrT^f ^* t^Tst <p3i<^i< ^F ^srRpT'sn^r lletitioii is devoid of siibstance, the <t tlie admissiou stape itself aiid is Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50,000.