High Court cannot issue direction contrary to law.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge dated 16.09.2005, made in W.P.No.8572 of 2005, Tmt. Muthammal Transports, has filed the above appeal.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. The writ petitioner, P.Swathanthirarajan, aggrieved by the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli in Rc.No.48748/A2/2004 dated 22.07.2005, renewing the Stage Carriage permit of the second respondent for their vehicle bearing registration No. TN-45-AA-7447, plying on the route Tiruchirappalli to Dindigul via. Manaparai, for a further period of five years from 31.08.2004 to 30.08.2009, filed W.P.No.8572 of 2005.

4. On 16.09.2005, the learned single Judge, after hearing the writ petitioner as well as the contesting second respondent, and after finding that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in 2005 W.L.R. 136 (Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., vs. C. Durai), dismissed the writ petition. However, the learned Judge, granted 10 days time to the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the authority concerned. In the same order, the learned Judge, further observed that, if any such appeal is filed, the authority is directed to consider and pass orders on the same on merits without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of limitation, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

.5. Mr. M. Palani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/2nd respondent, submitted that absolutely there is no dispute or grievance as to the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Judge. However, according to him, the learned Judge, committed an error in permitting the appellate Tribunal in entertaining the appeal of the writ petitioner (first respondent herein), without insisting the limitation period if the appeal is filed within 10 days from the date of the order in the writ petition. He further contended that, inasmuch as the period of limitation as per Rule 157 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 is 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and in the instant case, the order was received by the first respondent on 24.07.2005 and the last date for filing the appeal is 23.08.2005, whereas, the writ petition was filed in this Court directly challenging the said order only on 08.09.2005, i.e., 16 days after the prescribed period, consequently, the learned Judge, ought not to have expanded the time for filing appeal, which is not provided under the Act.

6. On the other hand, Mrs. T. Kokilavani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that inasmuch as pursuant to the direction of the learned Judge, the first respondent herein initially filed only revision, for which there is a provision for condoning the delay, the order of the learned Judge cannot be faulted with. In any event, according to her, this Court has ample power to issue such direction, including the direction, granting time to enable the aggrieved person to approach the appellate or revisional authorities in the interest of justice.

7. The short point that arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the learned Judge is right in granting 10 days time to file an appeal before the appellate authority, after expiry of the prescribed period?

.8. In the renewal application dated 02.07.2004 of Tmt. Muthammal Transport, Tiruchirappalli, appellant herein, the Regional Transport Authority, Tiruchirappalli, after considering all the aspects, in the absence of violation and infringement of the permit conditions and in the interest of travelling general public, renewed her permit in respect of Stage Carriage TN 45-AA-7447, plying on the route Tiruchirappalli to Dindigul via. Manaparai, for a further period of five years from 31.08.2004 to 30.08.2009. The aggrieved person, viz., the writ petitioner/first respondent herein, ought to h