WP227/7118/2008 of KANKER ROADWAYS Vs STATE TRANSPORT APP. TRI. and OTHERS on 19 December 2008

^,^^A^1'

HIGH COUHT OF OUHATI ISGAHH, BtlLASFIJlK

Wrlt Petition (22TS No. 7118/2008

PBTITIOWERKaiiker Roadways,Ihrouph theMonagiagPartner,PreeteinSingh Garcha S/o. late JogendraSiD.g, aged aboiit 59 years, R/o,-CivH Luies, Raipur (C. G.)MonagiagPartner,PreeteinSingh Garcha S/o. late JogendraSiD.g, aged aboiit 59 years, R/o,-CivH Luies, Raipur (C. G.)

¥ersus

'Iraiisport1StateAppellateTr^l^in^lJL X ^.|L<1 Go.^.ji-t-tJl.^P^i^iii^A \ I-^JLJ^ !L^JL <pn\^:.^^;l^i,yTr^l^in^lJL X ^.|L<1 Go.^.ji-t-tJl.^P^i^iii^A \ I-^JLJ^ !L^JL <pn\^:.^^;l^i,y2State1 raasport Authonty, Kaipiir(CG)(CG)

Rl&SPOlSi'DBWTB

3KamalieetKaur,W/o.LateSat'.vant Smg Gitl, aged about /1Qyeai's,r/o,-Pandn BusSiaadRaipur (CG)Sat'.vant Smg Gitl, aged about /1Qyeai's,r/o,-Pandn BusSiaadRaipur (CG)

(Appellaiit betbre 8. t .A. 1, Kaipiir)

WRIT PBTITION UN'DISR ARTICLB 227 OF THBCOHSTITUTION QF INDIA

Appearai&ee:

Shri F.S.Khare, Counsel tor the Petitioner.Shri Prasuun Bhaduri, Panel la\v57er for theState/respondeuts No. 1 & 2.

ORAL ORDKR(19.12.2008)

Ihey are heard on adniission.

By way of tliis writ petition tiied under Article 227 of UieConstitution ot India, ftie petitioner has chaUenged tlie validityof ttie onler dated17.11.2008(AnriexureP/1)passedbyrespondentNo.luiAppealno.65/2008,wherebytiierespondent No. 1 has coiidoned fhe delay of one month and 18days ia filiag tlie appeal by allowiag Uie application tiled underSection 5 of tlie Limitation Act.

^,::y .<•

-%!^A/^^^^•^5S^

W.P._(2!2?':(,]Blp._71,18,OF.^008

Leamedcounsel ibr ihepetitioner subinits that therespondent No. 1 ought to have dismissed tbe appMcation aiidconsequenfly the appeal ought to have been dismissed.respondent No. 1 ought to have dismissed tbe appMcation aiidconsequenfly the appeal ought to have been dismissed.

1 have considered tfie argumens advaaced by counsel tortiie petitioner aiid also perused flie contents of Uie order dated17.11.2008.

The order dated 17,11.2008 has been passed atter dueapplication of iniad, llie respondent No.1 has cousidered tliegrouiidsraisedbytherespondentNo.3aiidttien it hascondoned tlie delay in filing tlie appeal and has fbced the appeal±brlinal hearmg on 10. 12.2008.

I do not thid aay reason to iiitertere ui me order passed byrespondent No.l while condoning the delay in ilittig ttie appealby respondent No.3.

The petition deserves to be aiid is accorduigly dismissedat ttie motion stage itseit.

No costs,

Sd/-Sunil Kumar SinhaJudge