IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14760 of 2010 Date of Decision : August 19, 2010. The Hisar Classic Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. .....Petitioner versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hisar and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Vishal, DAG, Haryana. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.Rajiv Vishal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a Co-operative Transport Society which is aggrieved at the order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hisar (respondent No.1) whereby his appeal has been dismissed being barred by limitation. It is averred that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a Civil Writ Petition C.W.P.No .14760 of 2010 2 No.7446 of 2009 challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 18.2.2009 (Annexure P-1). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.5.2009 (Annexure P-2) with liberty to the petitioner-society to prefer an appeal. It was further observed that the learned Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the petitioner's appeal expeditiously. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that soon after passing of the order dated 18.5.2009, the appeal was filed within a period of one month on 15.6.2009 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. However, the learned Appellate Tribunal has turned down the petitioner's application and has consequently dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records. From the facts on record, it is apparent that the petitioner- society cannot be said to have acted negligently in approaching one or the other forum to challenge the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. The fact that earlier also the petitioner-society approached this Court indicates its anxiety in pursuing and exhausting one or the other remedies. In these circumstances when the matter was relegated by this Court, the Tribunal ought to have decided the petitioner's appeal on merits. Otherwise also, unless the Court is satisfied that a litigant has acted in a gross negligent manner and the other party has acquired a legally vested right, it ought to have liberal approach for condoning the delay. C.W.P.No .14760 of 2010 3 For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 is set-aside and the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the statutory appeal is allowed and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal on merits, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Dasti. August 19, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE