IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1945 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 11, 2008 Jagdeep Singh .....PETITIONER Versus The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG --- Present: Mr.Arvinder Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.04.2007 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') against the order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the State Transport Commissioner-cum-Regional Transport Authority, Patiala in exercise of the powers under Section 103(1) of the Act, was dismissed on the ground that in view of the provisions of sub- section (3) of Section 103 of the Act, no appeal was maintainable against the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner-cum-Regional Transport Authority. While dismissing the said appeal it was also observed that even on the point of limitation in the matter of entertaining the appeals, the appeal filed after a period of near-about 10 years could not have been entertained. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner C.W.P. No. 1945 of 2008 -2- could not convince the Court about the maintainability of the appeal under Section 89 of the Act against the order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the State Transport Commissioner-cum-Regional Transport Authority, Patiala in view of specific bar created under sub-section (3) of Section 103 of the Act. In our opinion, sub-section (3) of Section 103 clearly bars the filing of the appeal against any action taken or order passed by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub- section (1) or sub-section (2). For facility of reference, sub-section (3) of Section 103 of the Act reads as under:- “103. Issue of permits to State transport undertakings. (1) xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).” Faced with this situation, after arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition without prejudice to his right to avail the remedy of Revision under Section 90 of the Act against the order dated 11.12.1997 passed by the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 11, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) vkg JUDGE