IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19082 of 2007 Date of decision: 21.5.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ......Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.S. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2. Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajive Bhalla, J. ( Oral). Reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in Court today is taken on record. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, dismissing the appeal filed by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, on the ground that it was barred by limitation as also on merits. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, heard arguments on 8.6.2006. The order was pronounced on 10.7.2006. The petitioner filed an application for supply of certified copy on 21.6.2006 i.e. prior to the pronouncement of the order . Certified copy of the said order was delivered to the petitioner on 8.9.2006 as is apparent from a copy of the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner appended with the writ CWP No.19082 of 2007 -2- petition as Annexure P-1. It is, therefore, asserted that as the appeal which was thereafter filed on 9.10.2006 was within limitation, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation. It is further argued that even on merits the Tribunal erred in upholding the extended route. Counsel for the respondents are not in a position to controvert the aforementioned facts but assert that as the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed on merits even if it is presumed that the appeal is within limitation, the appeal having been decided against the petitioner on merits, the instant writ petition be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab after hearing all the parties, reserved his orders on 8.6.2006. The petitioner, admittedly, filed an application for supply of a certified copy on 21.6.2006. The order was pronounced on 10.7.2006. The certified copy was prepared on 8.9.2006 and supplied on 9.9.2006. The appeal was filed on 10.9.2006. The learned Tribunal, however, dismissed the revision as barred by limitation without considering these facts and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from an error of jurisdiction. As regards, the merits of the present controversy, there is a dispute on facts between the petitioner as also the private respondents as to whether the extended route is beyond 24 kms. The petitioner asserts that the route is 25 kms long while the private respondents assert that it is 23 kms. Though the Tribunal decided this dispute against the petitioner yet in our view, the matter requires reconsideration not only as the appeal is within limitation but also in view of the fact that the fare table which reflects the distance as 25km has not been considered and other matters relevant CWP No.19082 of 2007 -3- for adjudication of the merits of the instant controversy have not been considered by the Tribunal. Consequently, we allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) and remit the matter to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. . Parties are directed to appear before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab on 15.7.2008. (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE May 21, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE