# Mohd. Uves & Anr v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Uttar Pradesh Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 2077
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-19
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12752 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ashok Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-uves-anr-v-state-transport-appellate-tribunal-uttar-pradesh-lucknow-ors-44698
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 90;
U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998: Rules 60,
2078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
91
(2)-Petitioners
challenged
order
dated
22.11.2018,
passed
by
the
Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh,
which was dismissed on the ground of
limitation by the Appellate Tribunal.
Allowing the petition, the High Court
held - In absence of publication or proof
of communication of order, the date of
order would be deemed to be the date on
which the order is communicated or
published. (Para 20, 22)

B. Power to condone delay has to be
liberally construed to advance the cause
of justice. (Para 23)

Writ petition challenges order and judgment of
State Transport appellate Tribunal, UP dated
26.04.2019.

Writ Petition allowed (E-4)

## Text

2 All. Mohd. Uves & Anr. State Transport Appellate Trubunal Uttar Pradesh Lucknow & Ors. 2077
financial aspects, Courts are not supposed to
interfere in the discretion of selection of
punishment by Disciplinary Authority since
they are the best judge to decide what
punishment should be impose upon erring
official. The role of Court in the matter of
departmental proceedings is very limited and
Court cannot substitute its own views and
findings by replacing findings arrived at by
authority on detailed appreciation of evidence
on record. In the matter of imposition of
sentence, scope of interference by Court is
very limited and restricted to exceptional
cases. Punishment imposed by Disciplinary
Authority or Appellate Authority unless,
shocking to the conscience of the Court,
cannot be subjected to judicial review. Court
has to record reasons as to why punishment is
disproportionate. Failure to give reasons
amounts to denial of justice.

35. In Union of India v. Bodupalli
Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553, Sanjay
Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.,
(AIR 2012 SC 1783) and S.R. Tewari v.
Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, Court
said that mere statement that punishment is
disproportionate to charge is not sufficient and
appropriate reasons have to be recorded by
Court if it proposed to interfere with quantum
of punishment.

36. Explaining the earlier judgment
In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India &
Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2386, where Court
held that punishment has to suit the
offence and the offender. It should not be
vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not
be so disproportionate to the offence as to
shock the conscience and amount in itself
to conclusive evidence of bias.

37. In Union of India & Ors. v.
R.K. Sharma, AIR 2001 SC 3053, Court
said that if the charge was ridiculous, the
punishment was harsh or strikingly
disproportionate
it
would
warrant
interference. However, it is only in
extreme cases, which on their face, show
perversity or irrationality, there could be
judicial review and courts should not
interfere
merely
on
compassionate
grounds. The employees when act in
fiduciary capacity and commits default, in
financial matters, major penalty has been
upheld.

38. In the entirety of the facts as
discussed above and the exposition of
law, I do not find any manifest error in the
orders impugned in the present petition so
as to justify interference by this Court.

39. Writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 2077

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHOK KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 12752 of 2019

Mohd. Uves & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Uttar Pradesh Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anant Ram Dubey, Sri Shobhit Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 90;
U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998: Rules 60,
2078 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
91
(2)-Petitioners
challenged
order
dated
22.11.2018,
passed
by
the
Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh,
which was dismissed on the ground of
limitation by the Appellate Tribunal.
Allowing the petition, the High Court
held - In absence of publication or proof
of communication of order, the date of
order would be deemed to be the date on
which the order is communicated or
published. (Para 20, 22)

B. Power to condone delay has to be
liberally construed to advance the cause
of justice. (Para 23)

Writ petition challenges order and judgment of
State Transport appellate Tribunal, UP dated
26.04.2019.

Writ Petition allowed (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.R. Dube, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K.
Giri, learned Additional C.S.C., who
represents all the respondents.

2. Considering the nature of the
order that is being passed, the learned
counsel for the respondents does not pray
for time to file counter affidavit and
therefore with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, this petition is
being disposed of finally.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by
an order and the judgment of the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. dated
26.04.2019 thereby the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, herein after referred
as the 'Appellate Tribunal' has dismissed /
rejected the Misc. Case No. 28 of 2019
and 29 of 2019 filed by the petitioner nos.
1 and 2 solely on the ground of limitation
without touching the merit of the case.

4. The fact of the case are that the
petitioners are indulged in transport business
and they applied for grant of permanent stage
carriage permits on the route. The applications
of the petitioners for grant of stage carriage
permits are considered by the Regional
Transport Authority, Aligarh and the Regional
Transport Authority, Aligarh by its resolution
have granted permanent stage carriage permit
to the petitioners by imposing model
condition of vehicle of ten years age. The date
of grant of permission by the Regional
Transport Authority, Aligarh was 22.11.2018,
however according to the petitioner the order
of grant of permission was not pronounced on
the said date i.e. on 22.11.2018 and it was kept
pending by the Regional Transport Authority,
Aligarh.

5. The petitioners' claims that on
several times they approached the office
of the Regional Transport Authority,
Aligarh and requested for issuance of the
copy of the grant of permission, however
the same was not delivered.

6. According to the petitioners the
applications are moved on 19.12.2018 before
the Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh
with a request to provide the certified copy of
the order granting the permission dated
22.11.2018 to the petitioners but neither any
information was supplied nor the copy of the
decision was issued.

7. The petitioners' claims that they
have continuously approached the office
of the Regional Transport Authority,
Aligarh but failed in their efforts to get
the copy of the order dated 22.11.2018 of
grant of permission.

8. The petitioners submits that the
copy of the order dated 22.11.2018 passed
by the Regional Transport Authority,
2 All. Mohd. Uves & Anr. State Transport Appellate Trubunal Uttar Pradesh Lucknow & Ors. 2079
Aligarh was only provided to the
petitioners on 21.02.2019 in which the
date of issuance of the copy of the order
was mentioned as 19.12.2018 instead of
21.02.2019. The petitioners approached
the office of the Secretary, Regional
Transport Authority, Aligarh to correct
the date of issuance of the order dated
22.11.2018 but no heed was paid on the
request of the petitioners to correct the
date of issuance of the copy of the order
dated 22.11.2018.

9. The counsel for the petitioners
submits that since permanent stage
carriage permits have been granted to the
petitioners on the applied route with the
condition that for lifting the permit the
age of the vehicle should not be more than
ten years.

10. According to the petitioners the
condition stipulated in the permit was not
correct
nor
acceptable,
hence
the
petitioners were advised by their counsel
to file an appeal / Misc. case before the
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P.,
hence the petitioners have filed Misc.
Case / Appeals before the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, U.P. at Lucknow,
which are numbered being Misc. Case
No. 28 of 2019 and Misc. Case No. 29 of
2019.

11. Both the above Misc. cases were
heard together by the Appellate Tribunal
and are decided by a common judgment
and order dated 26.04.2019 whereby the
appeals / Misc. cases of the petitioners are
dismissed on the ground of limitation
without touching the merit of the case,
hence the present petition.

12. The contention of the counsel for
the petitioners is that admittedly the copy
of the judgment and order passed by the
Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh
has been served upon the petitioners on
21.02.2019 against which the appeals /
Misc. cases have been filed by the
petitioners on 14.03.2019, that is within a
period of 30 days, even then the Appellate
Tribunal has dismissed the appeals / Misc.
cases of the petitioners treating the same
are filed beyond the prescribed limitation.

13. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the copy of the
impugned order passed by the Regional
Transport
Authority,
Aligarh
dated
22.11.2018 are received on 21.02.2019
and not on 19.12.2018 therefore the
rejection of the appeals / Misc. cases by
the appellate Tribunal is totally illegal,
arbitrary and bad.

14. Learned counsel for the
petitioners
placed
reliance
of
the
provision of Section 90 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 which reads as
follows:-

"Section 90. Revision.- The
State Transport Appellate Tribunal may,
on an application made to it, call for the
record of any case in which an order has
been made by a State Transport Authority
or Regional Transport Authority against
which no appeal lies, and if it appears to
the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
that the order made by the State
Transport
Authority
or
Regional
Transport Authority is improper or
illegal, the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal may pass such order in relation
to the case as it deems fit and every such
order shall be final.

Provided
that
the
State
Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not
entertain any application from a person
2080 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aggrieved by an order of a State
Transport
Authority
or
Regional
Transport
Authority,
unless
the
application is made within thirty days
from the date of the order.

Provided further that the State
Transport
Appellate
Tribunal
may
entertain the application after the expiry
of the said period of thirty days, if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented
by good and sufficient cause from making
the application in time.

Provided also that the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal shall not pass
an order under this section prejudicial to any
person without giving him a reasonable
opportunity of being heard."

15. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that admittedly the
order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the
Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh
was not communicated to the petitioners
either on the date of order or thereafter or
before 21.02.2019 therefore the rejection
of the appeals / Misc. cases by the
Appellate Tribunal on the ground of
limitation is wholly illegal bad and is also
against the provision of Section 90 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

16. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has referred the second proviso
of Section 90 of the Act.

17. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that since there was no
delay in filing the appeals / Misc. cases at
the hands of the petitioners therefore there
was no occasion to file the delay
condonation application.

18. He has further referred Rule
91(2) of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998
which provides that any aggrieved person
may prefer an appeal within a period of
30 days of the receipt of the order.

19. In the instant case the petitioners
claims that they received the copy of the
order impugned only on 21.02.2019 and
the same were never communicated to the
petitioners prior to 21.02.2019 therefore
the appeals / Misc. cases filed by the
petitioners on 18.03.2019 are well within
the prescribed period of limitation.

20. Assailing the order passed by the
Appellate Authority, learned counsel for
the petitioners have submitted that under
Rule 60 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 every decision of the Regional
Transport Authority or State Transport
Authority has to be published on the
notice board by the Secretary of the
concerned Regional Transport Authority
or the State Transport Authority and in
absence of its publication or proof of its
communication / information of the order,
the date of the order would be deemed to
be the date on which the order is
communicated or published and as there
exists no material on record to show that
the order was published, as per the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules or
otherwise
communicated
to
the
petitioners, the date of the order would be
deemed to be the date of its knowledge,
hence appeal / Misc. cases of the
petitioners were filed well within the
period of limitation. In the alternative, it
has been submitted that in any view of the
matter since the Appellate Authority had
the power to condone the delay in filing
the appeal, the appeals / Misc. cases of the
petitioners ought not to have been rejected
on the ground of limitation or on technical
ground as such the appeals / Misc. cases
ought to have been decided by the
Appellate
Tribunal
on
merits.
2 All. Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of U.P. & Ors.
2081

21. Learned Additional C.S.C., who
has appeared on behalf of all the
respondents, though sought to defend the
order passed by the Appellate Authority
but did not dispute the fact that the
Appellate Authority / Appellate Tribunal
had the power to condone the delay as per
the provisions of second proviso to
Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.

22. Having considered the rival
submissions, I am of the opinion that
prima facie there appears no delay in
filing the appeals / Misc. cases before the
Tribunal however, the delay if any
noticed by the Tribunal ought to have
been condoned when the petitioners have
explained in their memo of appeal /
affidavit that the order was neither
published nor communicated and that no
knowledge about the order was received
by the petitioners upon enquiry from the
office of the respondent no. 2 and that the
copy of the order was only received by
the
petitioners
on
21.02.2019
the
Appellate Tribunal should have been
proceeded in the matter by deciding the
appeals / Misc. cases filed by the
petitioners on merits.

23. It is well settled that power to
condone the delay has to be liberally
construed to advance the cause of justice
and the limitation should not be used to
shut
out
adjudication
on
merits,
particularly, where the delay is not
inordinate which, if condoned, would
cause substantial prejudice to the other
affected party. Accordingly, this Court
considers it appropriate to set aside the
orders passed by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow, dated
26.04.2019 and the Appellate Tribunal
therefore is directed to proceed in the
matter and to decide the appeals / Misc.
cases filed by the petitioners on its merit.

24. The Appellate Tribunal will
consider all legal and factual pleas on
merits to be raised before it by the
petitioners.

25. With the above directions, the
writ petition stands allowed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 2081

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 9392 of 2019

Jitendra Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependants of Government Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5 -
Compassionate appointments are an
exception and cannot be made the rule -
delay in making a claim dilutes the case
of
immediate
financial
penury
-
Petitioner's mother died in harness on
18.10.1999 - He attained majority in
2003-
Made
a
representation
on
11.10.2018 and approached this Court
by
present
petition
to
decide
the
representation - Dismissing this petition,
the High Court held - The concept of
compassionate appointments is created