HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1609 OF 2008 iPETrrmNER : I Hemant Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 years, Son of Shri Horilal Sahu, Occupation Business, Resident of Village and Post Kopra, Tahsil Rajim, District Raipur(CG) Present :- Mr. RP. Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State. ORDER (14th Mach 2008) Dhirendra Misha, J This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is dilected against the onler dated 20.2.2008 (Annexme P/ 13) passed by the State Tmnsport Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘STAT’) in Appeal No.85/2007, Hemant Kumar Sahu Vs. Mls Dhamtari Roadways, Dhamtari and others, Wheteby the STAT has dismissed the appeal only on the gmund that it has been prefened with a delay of 10 days. 4;. w” av »,4, - VERSUS RESPOIIDENTS 1. State of Chhatu'sgarh, thmugh the Semetaxy, Department of Transport, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2, The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (CG) 3. The Secretary, Road Transport Authon'ty, Raipur(CG) 4. M/s Dhamtari Rodways Dhamtari (CG), thmugh its Proprietor: Rameshwar Lal Sahu, aged about 51 years, Son of Late Shri Mamakhan Lal Sahu, Resident of Smtjonpara, Audyog‘k Ward, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari(CG) 5. State 'I‘xansport Appellate Tribunal” Raipur (CG), through The Chairman”, State Transport Appellate ’I‘n‘buixal, Raipur. F‘mm perusal of the impugned onier it ppears that the petitioner earlier e a writ peu'tion before this Court against the Older of the Regional Transport Authon'ty, which was reg'stemd as W.P.No.6240/07. However, dun'ng pendency of that petit‘on, the pxesiding o$cer of the STAT was appointed and in these circtances, the above petin'on was disposed of with liberty to the petitione to have recouxse to the alternative remedy available to him. Thereafter, the appeal was file by the petiu'oner admittedly on 26.12.2007 before the S’I‘A’I‘ a the learned ibunal sse the applicah'on for condonan of delay in ming the appeal on the gound that cerh'ded copy of the order passed by ts court was ohmined by the pen'tioner on 16.11.2007 and as such, the appeal sho have been hled by 15.12.2007 Whexeas the same has been $ed on 26.12.2007 with delay, of 10 da, which has not been duly explained. Taking into oonsiderah'on the facts and circtances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that delay of 1 days in ming the appeal appears to be bonah, te learned STAT ought to have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits. Aoooxdingly, th otder dated 20.2.2008 (Annexure Pl 13) of STAT, Raipur is st aside, delay in ming the appeal before the STAT is condoned athe Trib is directed to decide the appeal on merits after adonling opportunity of earing to the parties, in accotdance with law. Since this cider is being passed in the absence of the respondent No. 4, a liberty is granted to him to appmaeh this Court, if he feels aggrieved. s. Sd/— . I Dhirendra Mishrat Judge .L ‘ ‘ ‘\ ii;”x -' 1/“1 m a had fild ums r d nd Tr diamid tio hi uld a ys V. ums 0 de h e e nd‘ unal h