C.W.P No. 17572 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 17572 of 2007 Date of decision : September 16, 2008 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ...... Petitioner through Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate v. Shri Sukhchain Singh & others, ...... Respondents through Mr.S.K.Laddi, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G Pb for respondent No.4. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J Challenge in this writ petition is to the orders dated 14.2.2003 and 12.4.2006 dismissing the revision of the petitioner as barred by limitation. Respondent No.4, vide order dated 14.2.2003, allowed respondents No.1 to 3 one stage carriage permit for plying two return trips daily on Sangrur-Lakhiwal via Sunam, Cheema, Satouj, Budhlada, Boha route from Cheema to Lakhiwal and extension of the remaining route upto Bhikhi. The petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.5 against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by the impugned order as barred C.W.P No. 17572 of 2007 ::2:: by limitation. As per facts noticed in para 5 of the impugned order, respondent No.4 had passed the order on 14.2.2003. The General Manager of the petitioner came to know of the order in the last week of October 2004 and immediately applied for a certified copy of the same, which was supplied on 29.10.2004. The revision was filed on 29.11.2004. The limitation prescribed is 30 days. There was thus delay of about one year nine months and fifteen days. In the writ petition it is stated that the appeal (treated as revision lateron) was filed soon after getting the copy of the order dated 14.2.2003 and delay was for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the impugned order. We find that delay was not long and taking a pragmatic view, delay should have been condoned particularly when the Tribunal has recorded a finding on merits in favour of the petitioner. We are of the view that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and heard the revision on merits. Consequently, we allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order dated 12.4.2006 and direct the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits afresh in accordance with law. Parties will appear before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 17.11.2008. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 16, 2008 'kk'