WPMS/953/2016 of Yadesh Verma Vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal Uttarakhand AND ANOTHER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 953 of 2016 (M/S)

Yadesh Verma

……. Petitioner

versus

State Transport Appellate Tribunal & another ……. Respondents

Mr. Amar Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent nos. 1 & 2.

U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral)

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari quashing / setting aside the order dated 28.11.2014, passed by respondent no. 1 in revision no. 01 of 2014 (copy Annexure 3 to the writ petition).

2) On 28.11.2014, when the revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act was taken up for hearing, no one turned up on behalf of the revisionist, until 02.30 P.M. The revision was filed for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2001, passed by State Transport Authority, Uttarakhand. Since none appeared for the revisionist on the date fixed, therefore, the revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Aggrieved against the same, present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the revisionist/petitioner.

3)Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Ramagowda vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 897 and Shakuntala Devi Jain vs. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1869 SC 575 has observed that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ must receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required

to be condoned in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ahmed Jaan, 2008 (10) JT 179 that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay.

4) The expression ‘sufficient cause’ should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to party. Whether explanation furnished would constitute ‘sufficient cause’ or not will be dependant upon facts of each case. There cannot be straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting explanation furnished for the delay caused in taking steps. However, courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by slipshod order in over jubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal an exception more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed, valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not lightly be defeated by condoning delay in routine like manner. However by taking pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party against whom the lis terminates and defeating valuable

right of such party to have the decision on merits. The courts should strike balance between the resultant effect of the order it was going to pass upon the parties either way.

5) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be granted yet another opportunity to argue his revision on merits in the interest of justice, for, it is an admitted fact that the revision was dismissed in default of the revisionist when he failed to appear on the date fixed till 02:30 P.M.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioners assures that the petitioner will not commit any mistake this time in appearing before the Tribunal when the revision will be taken up for hearing on merits.

7) Writ petition is, therefore, allowed in the interest of justice. Ex parte order dated 28.11.2014, passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttarakhand, in Revision no. 01 of 2014 is, hereby, set aside. Petitioner shall appear before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttarakhand on 04.05.2016 to press his revision on merits.

8) Let copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges.

(U.C. Dhyani, J.)

Dt. April 18, 2016.