Dismissed

Kuldeep Chauhan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Jul 2019LPA/179/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed an appeal filed by a bus operator against a judgment that remanded a dispute regarding route permit conditions to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Court held there was no occasion to admit the appeal as the matter was already pending before the competent appellate authority. Full bench

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; pending application (if any) also dismissed.

Kuldeep Chauhan Vs State of Hp — Motor Accident Claims | Himachal Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

LPA No. 179 of 2016

¶3

Date of decision: July 01, 2019.

¶4

Kuldeep Chauhan. …...Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ……Respondents.

¶5

Coram

¶6

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.

¶7

The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶9

For the appellant : Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Narender Guleria, Addl. AG with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Dy. AG, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5.

¶10

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge (Oral)

¶11

Challenge herein is to the judgment dated 20.9.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 2158 of 2013, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents No. 4 and 5- writ petitioners is allowed and the appeal is remanded back to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Shimla to decide the same afresh.

¶12

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes.

¶13

¶14

The dispute pertains to the route permits qua plying buses on Nahan-Kayari via Mahipur, Rajgarh, Habban, Chhaila Jubbal route. According to the respondents-writ petitioners, consequent upon the advertisement dated 1.1.2012 they had made applications for the grant of route permits to ply their buses on this road. Their applications were duly accepted and route permits granted to them vide order dated 31.7.2012 (Annexures P-3 and P-4 to the writ petition). The decision of the respondent-Regional Transport Authority was assailed by the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) in this court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 4581 of 2012. The writ petition was decided by a division Bench of this Court with the observations that the petitioner (appellant herein) has an alternate and efficacious remedy before State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of without prejudice to the liberty available to the petitioner to approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

¶15

The appellant-respondent Kuldeep Chand consequently preferred an appeal before the Learned Appellate Tribunal. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed with a prayer to condone the delay. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was decided by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 15.3.2013 (Annexure A-4).

¶16

¶17

Aggrieved thereby respondents No. 4 and 5 had preferred CWP No. 2158 of 2015, which has been decided vide judgment under challenge in this appeal. As pointed out at the outset, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and remanded the case to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to decide the same afresh taking into consideration the mandatory provisions contained under Rule 85 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999. As per Rule 85, an appeal against the issuance of route permit can only be preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within 30 days.

¶18

Admittedly, in the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules 1999, there is no provision providing for condonation, of delay. In such a situation, whether the State Transport Appellate Tribunal should have entertained an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or ordered to condone the delay is a question which need adjudication. Learned Single Judge has not recorded any adverse findings against the appellant (respondent in the writ petition) and rather remanded the case to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal. The matter, as such, has now landed in learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal and pending disposal there. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to the appellant-respondent to have filed the present appeal as at this stage it cannot be said that he is aggrieved by the impugned judgment for the reasons that

¶19

¶20

whatever is his stand may brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal during the course of further proceedings/arguments in the appeal.

¶21

We, therefore, find no merits in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending

¶22

application(s), if any.

¶23

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary), Judge.

¶24

July 01, 2019, (vs)

¶25

(Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Judge.

Kuldeep Chauhan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Chauhan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreshta Devi Vs State of Hp

Brham Kumar Vs State of Hp

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

State of H.P. Vs Tejbir Sharma

State of Hp Vs Tedhi Singh

State Vs Bhagat Bahadur