IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.823 of 2010 (M/S) Garhwal Jeep Taxi Samitee, Kotdwar ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Shri Kurban Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Shri Raman Kumar Shah, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Dated: 08th June, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 filed in the Court today. Same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17.05.2010 passed by the District Judge, Pauri in Civil appeal no.28 of 2007, ‘M/s Garhwal Motors Owners Union Ltd. Vs. District Magistrate, Pauri and others” by which the application under section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered society of the owner/driver of the Car, Jeep and other small cab vehicles which are run by the owners under the permit and license of the R.T.O. on different routes of Garhwal area and for that purpose the local authority/ Nagar Palika provides the parking/ 2 stand for parking and also for picking the passengers from one place to another place. The office of the above society is situated at Station Road, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. In the year 2007, the Local authority had allotted the parking place to all public carrier vehicles including bus, Jeep and cars at Devi Road, Motor Nagar, Kotdwar for the purpose of controlling the traffic in the city and for that purpose an order was also passed by the Nagar Palika, Kotdwar. The respondent no.2 instituted a Civil suit no.28 of 2007 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kotdwar for permanent injunction which was decided on 30.01.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Pauri. Since, there was delay of 16 days in filing the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for the condonation of delay. The learned District Judge rejected the application of the petitioner filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act on 17.05.2010. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The learned District Judge rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that delay was not properly explained by the petitioner/applicant and he was negligent in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate because after knowing about the judgment dated 30.01.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the President of the Union Taxi Samitee on 17.02.2010. He also applied for certified copy of the order on 19.02.2010, which was delivered to him on 25.02.2010. Thereafter, meeting was called by the President of the Taxi Samitee on 27.02.2010 and it was decided that legal opinion from the senior counsel be obtained. The petitioner could not file the appeal within time due to Holi vacation. Immediately thereafter the appeal was filed on 15.03.2010. He further submitted that there is only 16 days delay, which deserves to be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner himself was negligent and did not approach the Court within time and his delay condonation application was rightly rejected by the learned District Judge. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record, I find that there is only 16 days delay in filing the appeal. Delay occurred in obtaining legal opinion from the senior counsel. This Court, keeping in mind that there is only 16 days delay in filing the appeal, in the interest of justice, thinks it proper that such delay deserves to be condoned. In the matter where delay is small, lenient view should be taken. Consequently, petition is allowed. Order passed by the learned District Judge is set aside. Petitioner’s delay condonation application is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the respondents. Learned District Judge is directed to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months 4 from the date of production of certified copy of the order. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 08.06.2010