Paramjit Kaur vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & Ors.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

This common order shall dispose of the three connected writ petitions filed by Paramjit Kaur, M/s Noor Amol Bus Service (Regd.) and Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, as all the three petitions arise out of the same selection process, the same order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Hoshiarpur and the respective appellate orders dated 02.09.2025 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab.

Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioners is that a public notice dated 08.09.2021 was issued inviting applications for grant of seven regular stage carriage permits involving seven return trips on the Hoshiarpur-Amritsar route. The petitioners, along with other applicants, submitted their respective applications. The applicants were heard by the Regional Transport Authority on 10.12.2021, whereafter the matter was reserved for orders. The Regional Transport Authority thereafter passed order dated 23.12.2021, whereby the applications of the present petitioners came to be rejected and permits were granted to the applicants found suitable by the Authority. The record further reflects that three permits/return trips were retained for the State Transport Undertakings in terms of the applicable arrangement.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, Paramjit Kaur preferred Appeal No.303 of 2022, Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu preferred Appeal No.304 of 2022 and M/s Noor Amol Bus Service (Regd.) preferred Appeal No.305 of 2022 under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab. All three appeals were instituted on 22.08.2022 and were decided by separate orders dated 02.09.2025. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the ground of limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that the order dated 23.12.2021 was never communicated to the respective petitioners. It is submitted that although the applicants had been heard on 10.12.2021 and the matter was thereafter reserved, the order passed on 23.12.2021 was not served upon the unsuccessful applicants. According to learned counsel, in the absence of communication of the order, limitation could not have commenced merely from the date on which the order was passed.

Learned counsel places reliance upon the Full Bench judgment in Jagtar Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others and submits that where an order has not been formally communicated, limitation has to be considered with reference to the date on which the aggrieved party acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the order. It is submitted that the petitioners acquired knowledge only subsequently, obtained certified copies and thereafter preferred their respective appeals without undue delay.

Learned counsel for Paramjit Kaur submits that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the order dated 23.12.2021 only on 02.08.2022 upon visiting the office of the Regional Transport Authority. She applied for the certified copy on the same day, received it on 08.08.2022 and filed the appeal on 22.08.2022. It is accordingly contended that the appeal could not have been dismissed as time-barred.

Learned counsel for Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu submits that the petitioner came to know of the order only on 21.07.2022, whereafter he applied for a certified copy on the same day, received the same on 27.07.2022 and filed the appeal on 22.08.2022. It is contended that he acted with due diligence immediately upon acquiring knowledge.

Learned counsel for M/s Noor Amol Bus Service (Regd.) submits that its Managing Partner had been making enquiries from the office of the Regional Transport Authority regarding the outcome of the proceedings and that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 23.12.2021 only on 21.07.2022. The certified copy was applied for on the same day, supplied on 27.07.2022 and the appeal was thereafter filed on 22.08.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further challenges the original order dated 23.12.2021 on merits. It is submitted that the comparative merits of the applicants were not properly considered and that the petitioners, according to their respective cases, were more suitable for grant of the permits. It is further contended that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority does not disclose adequate reasons for rejecting their applications and granting permits to the other applicants.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the respective appeals were rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. It is contended that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority on 10.12.2021 and, being applicants in the permit proceedings, were required to remain vigilant regarding the outcome of their applications. It is further submitted that the petitioners failed to satisfactorily explain the substantial period between the passing of the order and the dates on which they claim to have acquired knowledge thereof.

Learned State counsel further submits that the original order dated 23.12.2021 was passed after consideration of the applications and the respective merits of the applicants. It is contended that no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated either in the original order or in the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as learned State counsel and perused the record.

Since the three writ petitions arise from the same original order dated 23.12.2021, the issue of limitation raises a common question of law. The factual position qua each petitioner, however, needs to be noticed separately.

In the case of Paramjit Kaur, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority on 10.12.2021. Her case is that the order dated 23.12.2021 was not communicated to her and that she came to know about the same only on 02.08.2022 upon visiting the office of the Regional Transport Authority. She applied for the certified copy on the same day, which was supplied on 08.08.2022, and thereafter instituted Appeal No.303 of 2022 on 22.08.2022.

In the case of Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, the petitioner had likewise participated in the proceedings on 10.12.2021. His case is that he acquired knowledge of the order dated 23.12.2021 only on 21.07.2022, whereafter he applied for a certified copy on the same day, received it on 27.07.2022 and filed Appeal No.304 of 2022 on 22.08.2022.

In the case of M/s Noor Amol Bus Service (Regd.), the Managing Partner of the petitioner-firm had participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner pleaded that enquiries were being made from the office of the Authority and that it came to know of the order dated 23.12.2021 only on 21.07.2022. The certified copy was applied for on the same day and supplied on 27.07.2022, whereafter Appeal No.305 of 2022 was filed on 22.08.2022.

Thus, while the dates of the alleged acquisition of knowledge are different, the common question is whether the petitioners, having participated in the original proceedings and being aware that the matter had been reserved for orders, could reckon limitation solely from the dates on which they claim to have subsequently acquired knowledge of the order.

The Full Bench judgment in Jagtar Singh lays down that where an order has not been formally communicated, the question of commencement of limitation may depend upon the date of actual or constructive knowledge. The said principle, however, has to be applied having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. It cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted right upon an applicant who has participated in the proceedings to remain inactive for a substantial period and thereafter necessarily reckon limitation only from the date of obtaining a certified copy.

In the present cases, all three petitioners had participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority on 10.12.2021 and were aware that their applications had been heard and the matter had been reserved for orders. The order followed shortly thereafter on 23.12.2021. The question, therefore, is whether the petitioners have satisfactorily explained the substantial intervening period before the respective dates of alleged knowledge.

In the case of Paramjit Kaur, the Appellate Tribunal found that no satisfactory documentary material had been produced to establish any concrete or timely steps taken by her to ascertain the result of the proceedings between 23.12.2021 and 02.08.2022. The Tribunal, accordingly, found the explanation insufficient.

In the case of Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, the Appellate Tribunal similarly found that, having participated in the proceedings, the petitioner was expected to remain vigilant regarding the outcome of his application and that the intervening period had not been satisfactorily accounted for.

Likewise, in the case of M/s Noor Amol Bus Service (Regd.), the plea that enquiries had been made from the office of the Regional Transport Authority was considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the alleged enquiries were not supported by material sufficient to establish due diligence during the intervening period and accordingly did not accept the explanation.

The fact that each petitioner applied for a certified copy promptly upon the respective alleged date of knowledge and thereafter filed the appeal on 22.08.2022 cannot, by itself, explain the entire preceding period. The promptness shown after the alleged acquisition of knowledge may explain the period thereafter, but it does not satisfactorily account for the period commencing from 23.12.2021.

The petitioners were interested applicants who had participated in the original proceedings and were aware that the matter had been reserved for orders. In such circumstances, they were expected to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining the outcome of their applications. Mere assertion of subsequent knowledge, without satisfactory material demonstrating such diligence during the intervening period, cannot by itself be sufficient to displace the conclusion reached by the Appellate Tribunal.

The findings recorded by the Appellate Tribunal on limitation are findings based upon the material before it. Nothing has been demonstrated to show that the Tribunal ignored any material evidence or proceeded upon an erroneous factual premise. Nor has any such perversity or patent error of law been demonstrated which would warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

Consequently, the respective orders dated 02.09.2025 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab dismissing the three appeals on limitation do not call for interference.

Even otherwise, the petitioners have challenged the underlying order dated 23.12.2021 on merits. The common grievance is essentially that their respective claims were not properly appreciated vis-à-vis the applicants who were ultimately granted permits.

A perusal of the record, however, shows that the Regional Transport Authority considered the applications before it and thereafter proceeded to select the applicants whom it found suitable for grant of the permits. The petitioners essentially seek a fresh assessment of the comparative merits of the competing applicants.

Such an exercise cannot ordinarily be undertaken by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The Court is not sitting as an appellate authority over the assessment made by the competent transport authority. Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction or contrary to a mandatory statutory provision, interference is not warranted.

In the present case, the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity in the decision-making process adopted by the Regional Transport Authority. Merely because the petitioners consider themselves better suited than the successful applicants does not confer upon them an enforceable right to the grant of a stage carriage permit.

No independent ground for interference with the original order dated 23.12.2021 is, therefore, made out.

In view of the above discussion, the challenge raised by Paramjit Kaur, M/s Noor Amol Bus Service (Regd.) and Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu to the respective appellate orders dated 02.09.2025, as well as to the underlying order dated 23.12.2021, is devoid of merit.

Consequently, all the three writ petitions are dismissed.

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

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.