GUPTA, J.—-The petitioner was the holder of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Karauli-Narainpur-Tatwada route (hereinafter referred to as "the route"). The aforesaid permit was issued to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the R.T.A.") on August 20, 1968 and was valid upto August 19, 1971. It was thereafter renewed for a further period of three years i.e. upto August 19, 1974.

2. Under the first proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") an application for the renewal of a stage carriage permit is to be made at least 120 days before the date of its expiry. Under sub-sec. (3) of the aforesaid section, the Regional Transport Authority is further authorised to entertain an application for the renewal of a permit, which has been made not more than 15 days after the last date specified in the first proviso to sub-sec. (2) of the aforesaid section. The petitioner submitted an application for the removal of his stage carriage permit on June 15, 1974, which was late by 54 days, taking into consideration the limitation prescribed by the first proviso to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 58 of the Act. The R.T.A., therefore, rejected the aforesaid renewal application of the petitioner as time barred, by its order dated June 24, 1974. The petitioner thereafter submitted a further application stating that he could not submit the renewal application earlier on account of his illness and prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the application for renewal of his permit. This request of the petitioner was also turned down by the R.T.A. by its order dated August 28,1974 on the ground that delay beyond a period of 15 days from the last date as specified in the aforesaid proviso could not be condoned and the delay in excess thereof in submitting the application for renewal of a permit could not be compounded. The petitioner thereupon preferred a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") against the rejection of his application for renewal of the permit and the refusal of the R.T.A. to condone the delay in filing the aforesaid renewal application. The aforesaid revision petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated September 13, 1974. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel is that the delay in filling the application for renewal of the stage carriage permit of the petitioner could have been condoned by the R.T.A. and the Tribunal under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under—

"Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order No. I of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation—The fact that the appellant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section."

4. Thus under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act "the Court" is empowered to admit any appeal or application filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, in case the applicant satisfies "the Court" that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed period. The provisions of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act are confined to courts of law and they are not applicable to Tribunals. The R.T.A. or the Tribunal cannot be held to be a "Court of law" in the ordinary sense of that term.

5. In Town Municipal Council, Atheni vs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document