AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Huluvadi. G. Ramesh, J.—In these petitions, Petitioner has sought for to quash the order passed by the 1st Respondent as well as the 2nd Respondent at Annexures A and D respectively and the order of the Tribunal at Annexure ''P'' and, to direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the application filed by the Petitioner on 10.10.2008 to renew the permit No. 56/1998-1999 for the period from 8.10.2003 to 7.10.2013 to operate on the route Sugar to Kundapura as per Annexure ''C''.
Petitioner is said to be a stage carriage permit holder bearing permit No. 56/1998-1999 issued in the year 1998-1999, which was valid up to 2003 operating from the route Sagar to Kundapura and back. According to the Petitioner, since the vehicle was giving major mechanical trouble, he filed an application for replacement of the vehicle, covered under the permit before the 2nd Respondent. The 2nd Respondent considered the same for replacement and granted 60 days time to produce the vehicle and also to obtain an endorsement of replacement. The 1st Respondent listed the subject of the Petitioner on 4.7.2000 along with other similar permit holders and granted 60 days time from the date of the order i.e., 4.7.2000 to produce the vehicle documents and to obtain the endorsement, failing which the grant of permit gets automatically revoked.
According to the Petitioner, since the copy of the order was not supplied to him by his counsel and also no opportunity was given to the Petitioner, only during 2007 he approached the 2nd Respondent for renewal of the permit, wherein the 2nd Respondent issued an endorsement dated 4.12.2008 stating that the permit itself was cancelled by the 1st Respondent. As against the said order, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal, wherein the appellate Tribunal by order dated 22.10.2009 has dismissed the appeals. Hence, these petitions.
Heard.
According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, since copy of the order dated 4.7.2000 was not available, Petitioner could not seek for replacement of the vehicle as well as for further fixation of timings and he was all along waiting and only during 2007, he moved the 2nd Respondent.
It appears, the Appellate Tribunal has passed the impugned order without condoning the delay. However, the grievance of the Petitioner is that, the Appellate Tribunal without taking into consideration the compounding fees paid at Rs. 4,000/- for renewal of permits for the two successive periods i.e., for 10 years, has dismissed the appeal. Accordingly, he has sought for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of permit.
Learned Government Pleader submits that there is inordinate delay in moving the Respondent-authority, in the absence of any delay application being filed and considered, rightly the Appellate Tribunal as well as Respondent-authorities have dismissed the appeals filed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, liberty is given to the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal by filing a application for condoning the delay along with his explanation and it is for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the application/appeal of the Petitioner, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, to enable the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal, the impugned orders are set aside. Writ Petitions are disposed of.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Tribunal on 28.2.2011. Thereafter, the matter be disposed of in accordance with law, within two months.