'^. sn^i.w R-ii'h ^ WTdlKifl 'still'b Yi '.• T d-OTl "4|<| |0<|, BTfl^'IS, fs|<'ll.y^< ^?; *<1*<<»11 *KI<* WI, 200 an^?r 'vsv (ipfyi^r) TCIIW^ltet 311^1 HIGH COURT OF CHtIATTISGARH £TBILASPUR M.C.C. N ARISING OU PETITIOENR (Respondent No.4ofthe Writ Petition) 1. M/S through Sahu, Manra] Aubyo; (CG) 2. State 3. 4. 5. Versus NON- APPLICANT (Petitioner of the writ petition) DHIRENDRA MISHRA.J. Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, co| Heard. This M.C.C. is arising 2008 passed by this CoUrt| GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50.UUO. <t)T4ffl<H*T ^l^flf'if FS^ ''(.f^^K ^ sifin sii^i . 205/2008 (SB1 OF W.PC. 1609/2008 ^hamtri Road Ways Dhamtari (CG) its proprietors Rameswar Las aged 51 years, S/o Late Shri 'f.han Lal Sahu, R/o Station Para iik Ward, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari of Chhattisgarh, fhrough the Secret4iy, Department ofTransport, D.K.S. Bhawa|a, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) The R^gional Transport Authority, Raipur, Distt. liaipur (CG) The S^cretaiy, Road Transport Authority, Raipui), Distt.Raipur (CG) The ^tate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipui) (CG) through the Chairman State Trans^ort Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, Distt. Raipuij (CG) Hema^t Kumar Sahu, aged about 26 yr. , S/o |Shri Horilal Sahu, Occupadon Busin^ss, Resident of Village and post Kopra,|Tahsil Rajim District-Raipur (CG) ORALORDER 9-6-2008 nsel for the petitioner. out of the order dated 14th March in Writ Petition (C) No.1609/2008, \_ an^r^rfiFijg? "'•^ WT dl|ii<l 's(it<l* ...~^ 'Sv^ '<l|t||i?)-M, »Tf1'M'l$, R|01<iy 'r= tllKrtl *«l<!b WI. 200 3ffl^?T TRW ( Ijelf^alijtl) TOIIW ^iter 3)i^i oriller Vtie datdd whereby allowing the petitior) the non-applicant herein, Tribunal (STAT), dated 2Qth F^ the appeal preferred by non-| rejected on the ground that days. Since the above ordei present petitioners, who were| liberly was reserved to rais^ order. Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, petidoners submits that the by the STAT in the order against the order dated l' whereas under Rule 142 of th|e appeal is required to be filed| 10 days was wrongly calculatj this Court in W.P. [c] No. 624( As already observed in respondent/petitioner had No.6240/07 against the ordet since the STAT was without petition was dismissed by thf with an observation that thd appeal before the STAT bejf Article 226 of the constitutidn of petitioner-Hemant Kumar Sahu, of the State TransportAppellate ^bruaiy 2008 was set aside, by which ^pplicant Heinant Kumar Sahu, was same was filed with a delay of 10 was passed without notice to the respondents in fhe aforesaid matter, their grievances against the above flflcl'ill lllctf ^f ft^t <f«!t^l< i; affiiH sn^l tearned counsel appearing for the lelay was npt of 10 days as observed 20th Februaiy 2008, but the appeal k9.2007 was ffled on 26.12.2007, M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, the within a period of 30 days. Delay of id on the basis of the order passed by 3/2007. the order dated 14th March 2008,the iarlier presented writ petition (C) of fhe Regional Transport Authority, Presiding Officer at that dme. The is Court vide order dated 14.11.2007 petitioner has altemative remedy of fore approaching this Court under of India and accordingly reserving GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007— 50.UOO. £S-i^I.W VW* WII3(R^'*t|W •\- ? 3:SET -<11<< !<?»<<, ®T{1+l'ie,[s|<<i|<H^< *tWv\\ **<!* Wt. 200 sn^CT TWR (1pf^?tf) the right to the petitioner to that may be available to Thereafter, the petitioner app| dismissed on the ground of li^nit Taking into consideratijan Court allowed the petition w ought to have condoned th< decided the appeal on merits. So far as the contentioln in fact of more than 2 monthls STAT is concemed, at the Presiding Officer and therefoj his petition was dismissec^ availability of altemative r^mc Officer was posted in the ST4T. In these cu'cumstandi arguments of the leamed dismisssil of appeal by the ^ not be accepted and no cas^ 2008 is made out. Accordantly, the petid^ take recourse to altemative remedy |him under the provisions of law. )t-oached the STAT and his appeal was Initation. the overall view of the matter, this jith an observation that the Tribunal delay of 10 days and should have cbi<iT<'i<("ITt ^lfl^ff Tf 'f^i<lt Tf^^l-i i;3TfOT'3n^?r of the petitioner that the delay was |s and not 10 days as observed by the -elevant time the STAT was without [e, he approached the STAT only after by this Court on the groiind of medy, since by then, the Rresiding •s, I am of the opinion that the ;ounsel for the petitioner justifying TAT on the ground of limitation can for review of order dated 14th March n is rejected. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50.UOU.