Remanded

Pb. Roadways, Ludhiana v. Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Ropar & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Nov 2008CWP/17258/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the Transport Tribunal's order dismissing a revision petition as time-barred. The Court found the Tribunal erred in failing to condone the delay, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the case for a fresh decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

The order of 16.07.2007 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits.

Pb. Roadways, Ludhiana Vs Ambala Bus… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

C. W. P. No. 17258 of 2008

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Case No. : C. W. P. No. 17258 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 04, 2008.

¶5

Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana .... Petitioner Vs. Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and others .... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

¶8

¶9

Present : Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, DAG, Punjab for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) :

¶13

This petition seeks quashing of order dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure P-2) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing revision petition of the petitioner as barred by limitation.

¶14

Respondent no.1 was granted extension of route from time to time. Against order dated 19.04.2006, revision petition was filed by the petitioner on 06.09.2006. Limitation for filing revision petition is 30 days from the date of order. Thus, the revision petition was barred by limitation. 3. Case of the petitioner is that though order may have been

¶15

C. W. P. No. 17258 of 2008

¶16

¶17

passed on 19.04.2006, the petitioner acquired knowledge thereof only on 31.07.2006 and immediately thereafter, applied for certified copy, which was delivered on the same day i.e. 31.07.2006 and thereafter the revision petition was filed on 06.09.2006.

¶18

Even though the delay is required to be explained satisfactorily, too rigid view cannot be taken. Pragmatic approach has to be adopted to advance justice.

¶19

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has erred in not condoning delay and dismissing the revision petition.

¶20

Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on 16.07.2007 and remand the case back to Tribunal for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law.

¶21

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.2008.

¶22

(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE

¶23

November 04, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE

Pb. Roadways, Ludhiana v. Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Ropar & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pb. Roadways, Ludhiana v. Ambala Bus Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Ropar & Ors.

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

Punjab Petroleum Tanker Worker Union Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Messrs Satia Synthetics Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

M/S Bharat Industrial Corporation Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pritam Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Piara Lal Vs Chandigarh Sc and Bc Fin Dev. Corp.Etc.

M/S Hemkund Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.T.A.T. Punjab and Anr.