IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1624 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.8.2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala -----Petitioner Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. APS Mann, Advocate for respondent No.3. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 18.7.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissing the revision of the petitioner on the ground of delay. 2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 applied for increase in trips as per the claim notified under sections 99/100 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) to which the Civil Writ Petition No.1624 of 2008 petitioner filed objections. Claim of respondent No.3 having been accepted vide memo dated 18.12.2006 by the State Transport Commissioner, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under section 90 of the Act on 2.7.2007 which was beyond the prescribed period of 30 days. 3. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner learnt about the order on 2.1.2007 and copy became available on 18.6.2007 and the revision petition was filed on 2.7.2007. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. We are of the view that the petitioner having received copy of the impugned order on 18.6.2007, had sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 6. In declining to condone the delay, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in dealing with the issue. Reference` may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipokao (2005) 3 SCC 752 : AIR 2005 SC 2191 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. V. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be construed liberally so as to do substantial justice to the parties. One has to take practical view of the working of the Government, though without being unduly indulgent. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1624 of 2008 Unless want of bonafides or inactions or negligence is shown, application for condonation of delay should not be rejected if refusal to condone delay results in grave miscarriage of justice. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.7.2007, Anenxure P.5 is set aside and matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. 8. The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 3.10.2008 for further proceedings. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 4, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3