Jaspal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupla, J.—The petitioner applied for the grant of a mini bus permit on the Malerkotla-Rara Sahib route. Its application was rejected vide order dated February 9, 1991. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The permit was granted to Mr. Sukhjinder Singh. He started operating on June 4, 1991,

After the lapse of more than six years, the petitioners filed an appeal on August 29, 1997 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated August 12, 1999. A copy of the order has been produced as Annexure P-3 with the petition. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is alleged that the order dated February 9, 1991 had not been conveyed to the petitioner. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal had occurred. The petitioner prays that the order passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside and that the case be remanded for a decision on merits.

The respondents contest the petitioner''s claim, it has been inter alia pleaded that Sukhjinder Singh has been plying on the route since June 4, 1991. He lias not been im-pleaded as a party. No explanation for the long delay has been given. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal is just and fair.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the delay had occurred as the petitioner had not been conveyed the order. Still further, it has been pointed out that the Tribunal has overlooked the delay of more than six years in the case of Smt. Paramjit Kaur. A copy of the order dated September 22, 1999 has been produced as Annexure P-6. On this premises, the counsel prays that the case should be remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits.

The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Berry appearing for the respondents.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows a categoric finding that the order had not been conveyed to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that under the law an applicant is entitled to know the reasons for which his application for grant of permit is rejected. Stili further, the petitioner has averred in the petition that he had been visiting the office of the Regional Transport Authority for finding out the fate of his application. No information was given to him. This is not denied. It is, thus, evident that the delay had occurred primarily because the petitioner had not been communicated the order passed by the competent authority.

Still further, on a perusal of the record we find that in case of Smt. Paramjit kaur, the Tribunal had entertained the appeal against the order dated November 15, 1990, in the year 1997. It was not dismissed on the ground of delay. No reason for overlooking the delay was even given. Why was a different yard-stick adopted in the case of the petitioner? There is no answer.

It is true that one wrong does not justify another. However, in the present case it is clear that the order was not conveyed to the petitioner. Thus, the delay was attributable to it. In this situation, we think it appropriate to set aside the order dated August 12, 1999 and remand the case to the tribunal for a decision on merits.

Mr. Berry contends that Sukhjinder Singh is a necessary party. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want the permit given to Sukhjinder Singh to be set aside. Thus, it was not necessary to implead him.

No other point has been raised.

In view of the above, the order dated August 12, 1999 is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on merits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

R.M.S.