Disposed

Kawaljit Singh Walia v. Chandigarh Administration & or.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Mar 2012CWP/11742/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition for quashing an order. The court noted disputed questions of fact and that an alternative remedy of appeal lies under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an appeal. No question of limitation will arise if the appeal is filed within 30 days.

What did the court decide?

PETITION disposed with liberty to petitioner to file appeal within 30 days; no question of limitation to be raised if appeal filed timely.

Kawaljit Singh Walia Vs Chandigarh… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.11742 of 2011 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11742 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: March 27, 2012

Kawaljit Singh Walia

....Petitioner

Versus

Chandigarh Administration and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶13

Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondents No.4 and 5.

¶14

Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, forrespondent No.6. Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

¶15

None for respondent No.8.

¶16

******** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶17

C.M. No.3893 of 2012

¶18

Written statement filed on behalf of behalf of respondents No.7 along with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at appropriate place.

¶19

C.M. application stands disposed of.

¶20

::2::

¶21

CWP No.11742 of 2011 (O & M) CWP No.11742 of 2011 (O & M)

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court by way of present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 7^th June, 2011 (Annexure P-19) passed by respondent No.2Registering and Licensing Authority, U.T., Chandigarh. The said order is passed under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

¶23

In the reply filed by respondent No.6, a preliminary objection has been taken that an order passed under Section 55 of the Act, is appealable under Section 57 thereof.

¶24

Arguments have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to enquiry report which is in his favour whereas the other side has referred to the report of FSL, which has been given in favour of respondent No.6. Under the circumstances, there are various disputed questions of fact which arises in this petition. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 57 of the Act which reads as under:

¶25

“Section 57: Appeals.- (i) Any person aggrieved by an order of the registering authority under Sections 41, 42, 43, 45, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 55 or 56 may, within thirty days of the date on which he has received notice of such order, appeal against the order to the prescribed authority. ii) The appellate authority shall give notice of the appeal to the original authority and after giving any

¶26

::3::

¶27

CWP No.11742 of 2011 (O & M)

¶28

opportunity to the original authority and the appellant to be heard in the appeal pass such order as it think fit. ”

¶29

In view of the above, since the disputed questions of facts are involved herein, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appeal available to him. Learned counsel for the respondents state that in case an appeal is filed before the appellate authority within a period of thirty days from today, then, no question with regard to its limitation shall be raised.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by observing that in case the petitioner files an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of thirty days from today, the same shall be adjudicated by the appellate authority on merits without going into the question of limitation.

¶31

March 27, 2012 sukhpreet

¶32

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

Kawaljit Singh Walia v. Chandigarh Administration & or.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kawaljit Singh Walia v. Chandigarh Administration & or.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahant Narvadanand Giri Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdial Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Onkar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Kuldip and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunny Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gurinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others