Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
ASSISTANT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER(ADMINISTRATION), UTTAR PRAD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SRI NAND SINGH
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/07/1979
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
BENCH:
UNTWALIA, N.L.
SEN, A.P. (J)
CITATION:
1980 AIR 15 1980 SCR (1) 131
1979 SCC (4) 19
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1991 SC2141 (10)
ACT:
Limitation-Order passed on October 20-Communicated on
October 29-Starting point of limitation-When commences.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent’s application under s. 15 of the U.P.
Motor Vehicles Taxation Act for exemption of tax in respect
of his motor vehicle was rejected by the Taxation Officer by
his letter dated October 20/24, 1964 and this was received
by him on October 29, 1964. The limitation for filing an
appeal is 30 days.
On the question whether the period of limitation starts
from the date of the order or the date of communication of
the order.
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: Apart from the reasons given by this Court in
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition
Officer & Anr. [1962] 1 SCR 676 that an order must be made
known either directly or constructively to the party
affected by it to enable him to prefer an appeal, mere
writing of an order in the file kept in the office of the
Taxation Officer is no order in the eye of law in the sense
of affecting the rights of the parties for whom the order is
meant. The order must be communicated directly or
constructively in the sense of making it known, which may
make it possible for the authority to say that the party
affected must be deemed to have known the order. Generally
speaking the order would be effective only when it comes to
his knowledge directly or constructively, otherwise not.
[132E-G]
In the instant case the respondent had no means to know
the order of the Taxation Officer until he received his
letter on the 29th October 1964. That was the date from
which the starting point of limitation for preferring an
appeal commenced.
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2497 of
1969.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 14th October, 1966
of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 441/66.
G. N. Dikshit, M. V. Goswami and O. P. Rana for the
Appellant.
B. Datta for the Respondent.
132
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J. This is an appeal by certificate. The
Allahabad High Court decided that the date of the
communication of the order will be the starting point of
limitation for filing an appeal under Section 15 of the U.P.
Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The respondent wanted exemption
of tax in respect of his motor vehicle for a certain period.
He applied to the Taxation Officer, Kanpur. The order
rejecting his prayer was communicated in the letter of
Taxation Officer dated October 20/24, 1964 through the
Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur. The respondent
received that letter on October 29, 1964. His appeal was
within 30 days of October 29, 1964 but beyond 30 days of
October 24, 1964. If October 24, 1964 could be taken to be
the date of the order then obviously the appeal was out of
time. If, however, the date of the order in Section 15 of
the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, in the context, meant
the date of the communication of the order, then the appeal
was within time. Following the decision of this Court in
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition
Officer & Another,(1) the High Court has held in favour of
the respondent hence this appeal.
In our opinion, the judgment of the High Court is right
and cannot be interfered with by this Court. Apart from the
reasons given by this Court in the earlier judgment to the
effect that the order must be made known either directly or
constructively to the party affected by the order in order
to enable him to prefer an appeal if he so likes, we may
give one more reason in our judgment and that is this: It is
plain that mere writing an order in the file kept in the
office of the Taxation Officer is no order in the eye of law
in the sense of affecting the rights of the parties for whom
the order is meant. The order must be communicated either
directly or constructively in the sense of making it known,
which may make it possible for the authority to say that the
party affected must be deemed to have known the order. in a
given case, the date of putting the order in communication
under certain circumstances may be taken to be the date of
the communication of the order or the date of the order but
ordinarily and generally speaking, the order would be
effective against the person affected by it only when it
comes to his knowledge either directly or constructively,
otherwise not. On the facts stated in the judgment of the
High Court, it is clear that the respondent had no means to
know about the order of the Taxation Officer rejecting his
prayer until and unless he received his letter on October
29, 1964. Within the meaning of Section 15 of the U.P. Motor
Vehicles Taxation Act that was the date of the order
133
which gave the starting point for preferring an appeal
within 30 days of that date.
For the reasons stated above, we hold that there is no
substance in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed but in
the circumstances without costs.
P.B.R. Appeal dismissed.
134
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3