TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid till 18th August, 1973. On 12th April, 1973, the petitioners sent an application for renewal of the permit under certificate of posting to the Regional Transport Officer, Meerut in his capacity as the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. Meerut. This application was in fact, not received by the Regional Transport Officer, Meerut, who in fact is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority. Meerut. On October 22, 1973, the petitioners filed duplicate copies of the application dated 12th April, 1973 along with a certificate of posting dated 12th April, 1973 bearing the seal of the Post Office. This application was thereafter published under the Act. 2. On 20th September, 1973 Gopi Singh, respondent No. 3 filed his obj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eerut, Gopi Singh filed an appeal under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Lucknow. The Tribunal by an order dated 6-12-1984 allowed the appeal of Gopi Singh, set aside the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut by which the renewal application of the petitioner was accepted and further granted a regular stage carriage permit on the route in question to Gopi Singh. The petitioners being aggrieved by the decision dated 6-12-1974 challenged the same by means of the present petition. 5. The petition was admitted by this Court on 1-1-1975 and an ad interim order was issued staying the operation of the order dated 6th December, 1974, This order was confirmed on 24th July, 1981. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he permit in favour of Gopi Singh without recording any reason as to why the application of Gopi Singh was treated as valid in the eye of law. Since the application of Gopi Singh was neither within time nor security had been furnished and neither it was published the application of Gopi Singh was wholly incompetent and as such the permit, if any, could not be granted to Gopi Singh. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners consequently is well founded. 9. In regard to the first submission made by the learned counsel, it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the Act. Sub-clause (2) to Section 58 reads as under: -- 58. Duration and renewal of permits. (1)............................................. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'made' should be given the meaning 'filed'. 15. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that an application made after the prescribed period has to be dismissed as barred by time. Here also in this Section the word 'made' has been used. It implies that the application has to be made before the authority concerned within the prescribed period. If an application has to be made before the authority concerned, it has to be filed before the said authority. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the word 'made' as meaning 'filed'. Similarly, Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides as follows: -- 4. Where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Section 58(2), the result may be that it will not be possible for the authority concerned to comply with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act. 19. I am consequently clearly of the opinion that the word 'made' should be given the meaning as 'filed'. 20. 'Filing' does not contemplate personal presentation. The applicant can use any mode he likes but the application should be received by the authority concerned within the time prescribed by law. 21. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the application for renewal was posted on 12th April, 1973 but this application was not received by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut at all. For the first time the applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
