The Noor Bus Service vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab & Ors.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 21.08.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Amritsar, has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the original order dated 24.12.2021 and consequential relief in respect of grant of a stage carriage permit on the Ludhiana to Dera Baba Nanak route via Phillaur, Phagwara, Jalandhar, Beas and Batala.

Briefly stated, the pleaded case of the petitioner is that applications were invited for grant of stage carriage permits on the aforesaid route. The petitioner submitted its application and participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority. The applications were considered in the meeting held on 09.12.2021, when the petitioner was represented and the matter was thereafter reserved for orders. The Regional Transport Authority subsequently passed order dated 24.12.2021, whereby the petitioner was not selected for grant of the permit. The Authority considered the competing applicants and granted permits to the applicants found suitable and deserving.

Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred the statutory appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner claims that the order dated 24.12.2021 was not communicated to it and that it came to know about the same only on 10.05.2022, when it visited the office of the Regional Transport Authority. According to the petitioner, it applied for the certified copy on the same day, which was supplied on 13.06.2022, and the appeal was thereafter filed on 01.07.2022.

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, vide order dated 21.08.2025, dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal noticed the petitioner's participation in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority and found that the petitioner had failed to establish any concrete or timely steps taken by it between the date of the original proceedings and the alleged date of knowledge to ascertain the outcome of its application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. It is submitted that the order dated 24.12.2021 was never formally communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, limitation could not have commenced merely from the date on which the order was passed. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the order only on 10.05.2022, applied for its certified copy on the same day, received the same on 13.06.2022 and filed the appeal on 01.07.2022.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had acted with due diligence immediately after acquiring knowledge of the order. Reliance is placed upon the Full Bench judgment in Jagtar Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others to contend that, where an order has not been formally communicated, limitation has to be reckoned from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the order.

Learned counsel also assails the original order dated 24.12.2021 on merits. It is submitted that the Regional Transport Authority failed to properly appreciate the comparative merits and suitability of the applicants and that the petitioner had a better claim for grant of the permit. It is further contended that the order is not supported by adequate reasons and that the petitioner's case was not properly considered.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the appeal was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation. It is contended that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority on 09.12.2021 and was, therefore, fully aware that its application had been considered and that the matter had been reserved for orders. The petitioner was expected to remain vigilant regarding the outcome of its application, but failed to demonstrate any concrete steps taken during the intervening period to ascertain the result.

Learned State counsel further submits that the mere assertion of a subsequent date of knowledge cannot, in the absence of any material showing due diligence, extend the period of limitation indefinitely. It is further submitted that the Regional Transport Authority had considered the competing applicants and no patent illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated in the original order.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the petition and submitted that the Regional Transport Authority heard all applicants and passed the order dated 24.12.2021, rejecting the petitioner’s application and granting the permit to respondent No.3. The petitioner filed the appeal on 01.07.2022, after about seven months, without giving any proper explanation for the delay. Respondent No.3 had already started operating the bus from 15.03.2022. It was contended that the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred under Rule 85 of the Rules, 1989, as there is no provision for condoning such delay under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were not applicable to the present case.

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

The principal question which arises is whether the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the statutory appeal on the ground of limitation.

The petitioner admittedly participated in the proceedings before the Regional Transport Authority held on 09.12.2021. The petitioner, therefore, knew that its application had been considered and that the matter had been reserved for orders. The order was thereafter passed on 24.12.2021. The petitioner, however, claims to have acquired knowledge of the same only on 10.05.2022.

The petitioner has not placed on record any satisfactory contemporaneous material demonstrating that, between 24.12.2021 and 10.05.2022, it made any concrete or timely effort to ascertain the outcome of its application or obtain a copy of the order. The learned Tribunal has specifically considered this aspect and has found the explanation furnished by the petitioner to be insufficient. The Tribunal also noticed that the petitioner had not produced documentary material establishing any such enquiries or efforts during the intervening period.

It is true that Rule 85 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribes the period of limitation with reference to the receipt of the order and that the Full Bench in Jagtar Singh has considered the question of actual and constructive knowledge where an order has not been formally communicated. However, the said principle does not mean that an applicant who has participated in the proceedings can remain inactive for a substantial period and thereafter, merely by asserting a subsequent date of knowledge, claim limitation exclusively from the date of obtaining the certified copy.

In the present case, the petitioner was an interested applicant and had participated in the proceedings. The learned Tribunal has found that no material was produced to demonstrate any exercise of due diligence during the substantial period between the passing of the order and the alleged date of knowledge. The petitioner may have acted promptly after 10.05.2022 by obtaining the certified copy and thereafter filing the appeal, but such subsequent promptness does not satisfactorily explain the preceding period.

The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is thus based upon the material available before it. No perversity, patent error of law or jurisdictional infirmity has been demonstrated which would warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. The mere fact that the petitioner disputes the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is not sufficient for interference in writ jurisdiction.

In any event, the petitioner has not demonstrated any patent illegality or jurisdictional error in the decision-making process of the Regional Transport Authority which, by itself, would warrant interference with the original order. The petitioner essentially seeks a fresh assessment of its comparative suitability vis-à-vis the successful applicants, which is not the scope of the present writ jurisdiction.

Consequently, no ground for interference with the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, is made out. The challenge to the original order dated 24.12.2021 also cannot succeed.

The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

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