IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7005 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 7005 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 7005 OF 2000 The Regional Transport Officer, Thane & another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Shri Rajesh Shravan Bhalerao. ... Respondent. N.P.Deshpande, AGP petitioners. None for the respondent. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 25th July 2008. DATED: 25th July 2008. DATED: 25th July 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned A.G.P. for the petitioners. None for the respondents. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 2000 passed in Appeal Nos.65/2000 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Mumbai whereby the order dated 3rd July, 2000 passed by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer is set aside with direction to consider issuing of permit, in case applicant fulfils other formalities and requirements. 3. The impugned order was passed somewhere in the year 1998, i.e. almost 8 years before. Thus, more than 8 years have passed. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondents. Learned A.G.P. has no instructions. It is not possible to find out as to whether or not cause of action for this petition does survive. 4. On the above canvas, having gone through the impugned order, it appears that the order dated 3rd July, 2000 is not a speaking order. It was passed on the basis of then policy of the Regional Transport Authority not to grant permit for the three-tyre vehicles after 4th August, 1998. 5. The learned A.G.P., appearing for the petitioners, is not in a position to state prevailing policy of the State as on date. Since the order impugned in the appeal is a non-speaking order it was clearly in breach of principles of natural justice. It was expected on the part of the appellate authority to remit the proceedings back to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh consideration and reasoned order. Having not done so, impugned order is unsustainable. - 3 - 6. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order dated 5th September, 2000 passed in appeal No.65/2000 is modified. The proceedings are remitted back to the Regional Transport Authority, Thane to consider the application afresh in the light of the prevailing policy of the State. The remanded proceeding should be decided as early as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)