INJ-HE HON'BLE 1-IIGH COURT OF CHMATTCSeARH AT BILASPUR (C.6.) W.P. (0 N^, 7 -^7^ pf 2011 PETTTIONER/ Applicant lii'i'iiBBag JESPONDENTS/ Non-applicants .^^^ .^s^^ ^y ^ .-5' )^> •? ^^ M/s Balaji Travels, Through its Partner Bijay Kumar 6upta S/o Bhuneshwar Parsad 6upta, aged about 41 years, R/o Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1.; State Transport Appellate Tribunal D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.6.) 2. Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja CC.6.) 3. Vijay Kumar 6arg, S/o Teluram Garg, Bus operator, Ambikapur Road, Pathalgaon, Distt. Jashpur (C.6.) WRIT PETETION UNDER ARTtCLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTEON OF INMA 1 The foliowing is most respectfully submi-tted on behatf of the petitioner :- 1. PARTECULARS OF THE PETITEONER : As mentioned above in the cause title. 1 "TSf -^WW^, (Sfllyie, (s|dl-9^< , V^fty^,^2-^1-^1 Wi. 200 n Sf^f 'VW! (1clf'i«l<^T} w^v 'sef 1<-ii<* wnsil^lwiNi 'FRIIW^fefSII^I SB : Hon^l^Shri ManindraMetfan Shrivastava. J. 02-12-2011 Shri B. L Dembra along wiffi Shri Santosh Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Governmi No.2, on advance copy. Heard. This petition has been filei| dated 08-11-2011 (Annexure F} Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, (hereii whch, revision petition filed by barred by limitation, rejeoting appl] Learned counsel for the p^ filed revision petition aggrieved Authority, though, there was onl petitton, in respeot of which, an a| filed, the Tribunal has rejeoted U taking strict view in the matter of| looking to the short period of deli liberal view and condone the d^l decision of his revision petition o)' of the revision petitiqn by rejecl delay, has resulted in miscarria^ perusal .of the impugned order, jt 1>l<<[l'1<ill IWI'if 1Ef fe^t <|at(^l< ^affilH aii^i (Tt Advocate for the State/respondent by the petitioner aggrieved by order -1) passed by the State Transport lafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), by he petitioner has been dismissed as cation for condonation of delay. tituner submits that the petitioner has ly the order passed by the Transport four days delay in filing the revision (plication for condonation of delay was e application for condonation of delay ;ondonation of delay. He submits that ly, the Tribunal ought to have taken a ay, and the petitioner was entitled to merits. He submits that the dismissal ng the applcation for condonation of of justioe as the petitbner has been deprived of decision on merits. On the other hand, learnjed State oounsel submits that from a is reflected that though, the period of (ireasri -_..xleJay-,wa&-stlflTt_byLthere_wasj!o^reason assigned. In that view of the (ISF'Wira—.l'S;)40—2/2011—1,50,000. 1-11 /..^^ '^ I.''•6,.. ''^•"'"^' '••^f'^!/' sn^s ''ev R-fi* ffW an^l ^qNi' Turr^ne ^^f -^ww^, ®Tily<i<o,F°II?)I'H>I,< •WI, 200 3^I J^SK (,'^^ft) matter, rejection of the petitioner's iltegality. From a perusal of impugni has recorded that the provision of the revision petition up to 22^)8-2! filed on 26-08-2011, thus, there It is well settled that while of delay, liberat attitude has to petitioner was wholly n^ligent satisfy the Tribunal on merits of ths Taking into consideration condonation of delay and the was sought, is very short perbd the Tribunal ought to have taken li the delay, and thereby allowing th| by the Transport Authority on Considering that the appli^ rejected by the Tribunal without isj am not inolined to issue notice to t( In the resutt, this petition| revision petition is hereby <»ndon| Tribunal for consideration on the l:fti<4[<n<i1i *ii*icff^f Ts<<? <Fn'^i< 4? aiRin aii^i application does not suffer from any i4d order, l find that the Tribunal itself llimitation allowed the petitioner to file -2(p11, whereas the revision petition was w^s a delay of four days. cjinsidering application for condonation b^ adopted, unless it is found that the aifid opportunity need to be granted to 1$ oase. |that the petitioner had applied for peijod, in respect of which, oondonatioh of]four days, in the opinion of this Court, Iberal view in the matter and condone 1^ petitioner to assait the order passed i|;ation for condonation of delay was iuing notice to the respondent No.3, 1 ]ie respondent No.3. is ailowed. The delay in flling the ifed and the matter is remanded to the nleritsofthecase. s(y:.«S ^astava <A«n*"a riraiftn ir'atB ggirroiT, iT5RRT[l.T-—l's/i<»—2/2011—l ,50,000. [:);|!t(i