IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5439 of 2009 Between: R. Reddeppa Reddy S/o. Sri S. Radha Krishna Reddy, Hindu R/o. Velkur Village, Gangadhara Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Transport Appellate Tribunal A.P. Hyderabad, Rep. by its Presiding Officer Manorama Complex, Near Ajantha Gate, Mohahamjahi RoaD Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Transport Authority Chittoor, by its Secretary Chittoor District. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Manging Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling for the records in MP No. 134/2005 in R.P.No. 192/2005 from the file of the 1st Respondent and to quash its order dt. 6- 10-2005 made in M.P. NO. 134/2005 with a direction to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate order in it and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.KALLAKURI SRINIVASARAO The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 5439 of 2009 22-06-2009 Oral Order: By the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor in the meeting held on 26-10-2004 at the office of the District Collector, Chittoor, one K. Subramanyam was granted a stage carriage permit to ply on the existing town service route from Ambodarapalli to Chittoor Government Arts College (via) Atmakur, Gangadhara Nellore, Thana, Government ITI, Sharman High School, Lakshmi Nagar Entrance, Collectors Bungalow, Gandhi Statute, Old Municipal Bus Stand, MSR Circle, Z.P. Office, Greamspet and Durgamma Gudi, on a route length of 24.2 Kms. for one bus to perform 14 singles per day. Aggrieved thereby the 3rd respondent –Corporation filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad on 27-06-2005with an application to condone the delay of 214 days in preferring the revision. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the 3rd respondent claimed that the delay was occasioned on account of the delayed supply of certified copies by the RTA, Chittoor and therefore the delay ought to be condoned. Meanwhile, on 24-06-2005 the permit holder – K. Subramanyam and the petitioner submitted a joint application to the competent authority seeking transfer of the permit from K. Subramanyam to the petitioner. By the orders of the competent authority dated 07-11-2005 the transfer of the permit in favour of the petitioner was approved. Before such an approval, on 06-10-2005 the 1st respondent – Appellate Tribunal passed the impugned order in M.P.No. 134 of 2005 in the revision preferred by the 3rd respondent – Corporation which reads as under: Smt. Y.B. Saraswathi, Advocate filed memo withdrawing her offer to file vakalat for R.2. Same is accepted. R.2 is called absent. None appeared on his behalf. No counter on behalf of R.1. Hence petition is allowed. Delay condoned. Inter alia, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T. Venkataramana urges that the impugned order is illegal since it was passed without hearing the petitioner in whose favour approval for transfer of the permit was pending consideration before the competent authority pursuant to a joint application made by K. Subramanyam and himself. This contention is stated to be rejected. Neither on the date the Revision was instituted by the 3rd respondent nor on 06-10-2005 the date of the impugned order was there an approval of the transfer of permit in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had thus no locus standi to participate in the revisional proceedings or in any interlocutory proceedings in such a revision till 07-11-2005 when the transfer in his favour was approved by the competent authority. However, since 07-11-2005 the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of K. Subramanyam and could avail of all the rights that Subramanyam had. It is fairly conceded as the position of law by the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent that Subramanyam would have been at liberty to challenge the impugned order, but for the fact that he had already transferred the permit in favour of the petitioner. Since the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of Subramanyam, the petitioner could now challenge the order. The other contention advanced by Sri Venkataramana is that the order impugned is perverse as no reasons are vouchsafed by the 1st respondent – Appellate Tribunal for condoning the delay of 214 days in preferring revision. In defense to this attack, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-Corporation would state that there are justifiable reasons for condoning the delay. It is needless to state that the justifications offered by the 3rd respondent- Corporation would not legitimise a perverse order of a quasi judicial authority. That there was no representation on behalf of the respondents cannot be a ground for condoning delay. The delay has to be condoned on reasons rational and germane for exercise of the discretion to condone the delay. It is trite that while the power to condone the delay is a discretionary power, it is not the discretion of the judge, but the discretion of the law. On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned order commends invalidation and is quashed. The matter is remanded to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, A.P., Hyderabad for de novo consideration of M.P.No. 134 of 2005 in R.P.No. 192 of 2005 filed by the 3rd respondent Corporation seeking condonation of delay of 214 days. If the petitioner has already impleaded in the revisional proceedings, he would be entitled to participate in the proceedings. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-06-2009 Pvks