The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C), being aggrieved by the rejection of its revision in RP.No.448 of 2003 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, on the ground of limitation, filed the present writ petition.

2. The said revision was filed under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1988’) aggrieved by the grant of permit to S.V.V.S.S. Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kakinada on the mofussil route Annavaram to Danavaipet.

3. In the first instance, when the Devasthanam was granted permit dated 23.04.2001 in respect of this route, the same was challenged by the A.P.S.R.T.C in Revision Petition No.19 of 2001, which was allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, by order dated 12.11.2002 remanding the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Kakinada. Thereupon, after affording an opportunity to both the parties on 25.01.2003, the order was passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kakinada, granting the permit to the Devasthanam. It is however to be noticed that the said order, though it bears the date 25.01.2003, was actually signed by the authority on 07.04.2003. The proceedings issuing the permit in favour of the Devasthanam were subsequently passed on 30.07.2003, valid for a period of five years, i.e. upto 29.07.2008. The permit is stated to have been renewed thereafter.

4. Be that as it may, the A.P.S.R.T.C, claiming that it was ignorant of the order dated 25.01.2003, filed an application only on 01.09.2003 for issue of a certified copy thereof. It is on the basis of this certified copy that the revision was filed before the Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the application filed by the A.P.S.R.T.C did not disclose that it wanted a certified copy for the purpose of filing a revision, held against it on that ground. Further, placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C Vs. T.Saidaiah and others [1], the Tribunal held that once the A.P.S.R.T.C failed to file an application for condonation of delay, the revision filed by it was barred by limitation. On these two short grounds the Tribunal dismissed the revision. The rejection of the revision on the ground that the application did not disclose its purpose does not stand to reason. No such requirement is prescribed in law. The approach of the Tribunal in this regard therefore cannot be countenanced.

6. As stated supra, the order dated 25.01.2003 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kakinada, in favour of the Devasthanam was signed only on 07.04.2003. Section 90 of the Act of 1988 provides that the Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain a revision unless it is made within 30 days from the date of the order. No doubt, under the second proviso to Section 90, the Tribunal has been given the discretion to entertain such revision even after the expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making the application in time. However, in this case a peculiar situation arises as the date of the order sought to be revised is 25.01.2003 but it was actually signed only on 07.04.2003. Therefore, it was practically impossible for the revision to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the order as required under Section 90 of the Act of 1988. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Transport Commissioner, Lucknow Vs. Nand Singh [2], wherein the Supreme Court was dealing with a similar provision in the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which required an appeal to be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. The order in that case was dated 24.10.1964 but was actually communicated on 29.10.1964. The appeal filed by the aggrieved party was within 30 days from the date of communication, 29.10.1964. Faced with this situation, the Supreme Court opine