Amandeep Kaur & Anr. vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & Ors.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot, has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The petitioners have also challenged the aforesaid order dated 09.12.2021, whereby their joint application for grant of one stage carriage permit for operating one return trip daily on the Barnala-Abohar via Muktsar, Kotkapura and Baja Khana route was rejected and permits were granted in favour of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioners is that the Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot invited applications for grant of four stage carriage permits involving four return trips daily on the aforesaid route. The petitioners jointly submitted their application for one permit. Their application, along with the applications submitted by the other applicants, was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 09.12.2021. The petitioners appeared before the Authority and pressed their claim, inter alia, on the ground that they were young graduates and unemployed and that grant of the permit would provide them an opportunity of self-employment. The matter was thereafter reserved for orders. The petitioners assert that the order passed pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings was not communicated to them. According to them, they visited the office of the Regional Transport Authority on several occasions to ascertain the fate of their application, but no information was supplied. They claim that on 20.09.2023, they were informed that the order had already been passed. They applied for a certified copy on the same day, which was supplied on 23.10.2023, and thereafter preferred the statutory appeal on 21.11.2023. The learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 11.09.2025. The Tribunal noticed that although the proceedings had been held on 09.12.2021, the date of pronouncement was not mentioned on the original order. It examined the record and found that the grant letters issued to the successful applicants were dispatched on 23.12.2021 and specifically mentioned the date of the order as 23.12.2021. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the order stood pronounced on 23.12.2021. It further found that the petitioners had failed to establish any concrete or timely steps taken by them to ascertain the result of their application between 09.12.2021 and 20.09.2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. It is submitted that Rule 85 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and that the petitioners received the certified copy only on 23.10.2023, whereafter the appeal was filed on 21.11.2023. It is, therefore, contended that the appeal was within limitation. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 09.12.2021/23.12.2021 was never communicated to the petitioners and there is no material to establish that they had actual or constructive knowledge of the same before 20.09.2023. Reliance has been placed upon the Full Bench judgment in Jagtar Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others. It is argued that, in the absence of communication or knowledge of the order, limitation could not have commenced merely from the date on which the order was passed.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners had not remained deliberately inactive, as alleged by the Tribunal. It is stated that they had repeatedly approached the office of the Regional Transport Authority to ascertain the outcome of their application. On merits also, it is contended that the comparative merits of the applicants were not properly considered and that the petitioners had a better claim for grant of the permit. The order of the Regional Transport Authority is stated to be arbitrary and unsupported by adequate reasons.

Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the private respondent(s), submits that the appeal was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. It is contended that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority on 09.12.2021 and were aware that the matter had been reserved for orders. Despite the same, they failed to take any concrete steps for a considerable period to ascertain the outcome of their application. The alleged repeated visits to the office of the Authority, it is submitted, are not supported by any contemporaneous material.

Learned State counsel further submits that the Tribunal considered the explanation furnished by the petitioners and rightly found the same to be vague and unsubstantiated. It is also pointed out that no application for condonation of delay was filed before the Tribunal. The original order, according to learned counsel, was passed after consideration of the competing applications and no patent illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the statutory appeal has been held to be barred by limitation despite their specific case that the order was not communicated to them. The question, therefore, is whether, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal was justified in declining to entertain the appeal.

Rule 85 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes a period of thirty days for filing an appeal against an order of the State or Regional Transport Authority. The Full Bench of this Court in Jagtar Singh has considered the question of commencement of limitation in cases where the order has not been formally communicated. The Full Bench held that where there is no formal communication, limitation would commence from the date on which the aggrieved party acquires actual or constructive knowledge of the order. Whether such knowledge existed is a question to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Thus, the principle laid down in Jagtar Singh does not mean that limitation would invariably commence from the date of pronouncement of the order irrespective of communication or knowledge. At the same time, the absence of formal communication cannot be treated as permitting an applicant who has participated in the proceedings to remain inactive indefinitely. The conduct of the applicant and the material available to establish actual or constructive knowledge have necessarily to be considered.

In the present case, the petitioners admittedly participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority on 09.12.2021 and were aware that their application had been considered and the matter had been reserved for orders. The Tribunal has further noticed from the record that the grant letters issued to the successful applicants were dispatched on 23.12.2021 and specifically referred to the order dated 23.12.2021.

The petitioners, however, claim that they acquired knowledge of the order only on 20.09.2023. The learned Tribunal considered this explanation and found that no documentary material had been placed on record to establish that the petitioners had made any concrete or timely enquiry between 09.12.2021 and 20.09.2023 regarding the result of their application. The petitioners' assertion regarding repeated visits to the office of the Authority was, therefore, not found sufficient to explain the substantial intervening period. The fact that the petitioners obtained the certified copy on 23.10.2023 and filed the appeal on 21.11.2023 may show that they acted promptly after obtaining the copy. However, such promptness does not, by itself, explain the period of nearly one year and nine months preceding the application for the certified copy. The petitioners were interested applicants who had participated in the proceedings and were expected to exercise reasonable diligence in pursuing the outcome of their application.

It is also relevant that no application seeking condonation of delay was filed before the learned Tribunal. The petitioners proceeded on the basis that there was no delay at all, whereas the Tribunal, after considering the explanation, found that the period preceding 20.09.2023 had not been satisfactorily accounted for.

The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on the question of limitation are findings based upon the material placed before it. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the Tribunal ignored any material evidence, proceeded on an erroneous factual premise or arrived at a conclusion which is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error. In exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, this Court would not substitute its own assessment for that of the statutory appellate authority merely because another view may be possible.

As regards the challenge to the original order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioners seek a re-appreciation of the comparative merits of the competing applicants. The Tribunal, having dismissed the statutory appeal on limitation, had not examined the merits of the original order. In these circumstances, this Court would also not undertake a first-instance re-appreciation of the comparative claims in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

In any event, the petitioners have not demonstrated any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the decision-making process of the Regional Transport Authority which would independently warrant interference with the original order. The prayer for a positive direction to grant a stage carriage permit to the petitioners, therefore, also cannot be accepted.

For the reasons recorded above, no ground for interference with the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, is made out.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Civil Miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed of.