The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 starts from the date the aggrieved party acquires actual or constructive knowledge of the order, based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.2.2013, whereby the writ petition filed by it has been dismissed.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as available on the record, may be noticed. The appellant, a Cooperative Transport Society filed a writ petition in this Court impugning the order dated 27.3.2009 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab (STAT)whereby the appeal filed by it was dismissed being time barred. Order dated 10.4.2001 passed by State Transport Commissioner has also been challenged whereby the application filed by the appellant for the grant of a regular stage permit on Pathankot to Ludhiana route was rejected. In pursuance to the surveyor report, a notice was published in the Motor Transport Gazette dated 22.4.2000 inviting applications for grant of six regular stage carriage permits for plying buses on six return trips. In response thereto, 170 operators including the appellant and private respondents submitted their applications seeking their claim for grant of permit. Contents of the applications were published in the Motor Transport Gazette dated 8.8.2000. No objection was preferred to oppose the grant of permits to the route in question. After hearing all the applicants in the meeting held on 22.1.2001, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 10.4.2001 without notice or intimation to the appellant. The said order was not communicated to the appellant. It was only on 14.2.2008 that the President of the appellant society came to know that its application had been rejected. The appellant submitted application for obtaining certified copy of the order which was prepared and supplied on 1.4.2008 and the appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) was filed before the STAT on 30.4.2008 within a period of 30 days from the date of supply of certified copy of the order within the limitation prescribed. The said appeal was dismissed on 27.3.2009 being time barred on the ground that it had been filed after a lapse of about six years. Counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge contended that since the appellant did not receive the copy of the order nor it was aware of the fact that the decision had been taken on its application, there was no occasion for the appellant to file an appeal prior to the date on which the same had been actually filed. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jagtar Singh vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, CWP No.8229 of 2007, decided on 30.1.2009 to contend that even if no formal communication of the order passed by the State or Regional Transport Authority had been done, the period of limitation for filing the appeal would start running from the date the aggrieved party acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the making of the said order. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties agreed with the findings recorded by the STAT and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court through the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the STAT as well as learned Single Judge had erred in holding that there was constructive knowledge of order passed by the State Transport Commissioner to the appellant which was reserved on 10.4.2001. Relying upon judgments of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Das and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 3 SCC 545, State of Maharashtra and others v. M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Limited, AIR 2011 SC 1374 and Single Bench judgments of this Court in CWP No.15186 of 2010 (Jain Motors Regd. Patiala v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others) decided on 12.12.2011 and Manjit Kaur v. State transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and another, CWP No.3423 of 2012, decided on 19.9.2012, it was contended that the view o