Mahavir Chaudhary and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - it has been asserted that the project is part of an endeavour to invite the world's best education talent in his era of globalization by developing this education city as a hub of learning. the effort is to attract the world's best education talent in this era and make the education city as hub of learning by taking the maximum advantage of globalisation.m.m. kumar, j.1. the prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 17.11.2005 (annexure p.2) issued under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (for brevity' the act') and declaration dated 7.2.2006 (annexure p.4) issued under section 6 of the act. it is admitted position that the instant petition was filed on 8.3.2006 which came up for hearing on 10.3.2006. on the basis of already pending petition namely cwp no. 2946 of 2006, notice of motion was issued alongwith interim directions in those very terms which were issued in the bunch of other connected matters including cwp no. 2946 of 2006.2. mr. ashish kapoor, learned state counsel at the outset has pointed out that award in this case was announced on 6.3.2006 before the filing of objections. he has further pointed out that rajiv gandhi education city is being developed in the multi functional urban complex right on national highway no. 1 at sonepat which is likely to have top class infrastructure and support services to attract world class educational institutes to open their campuses there. it has been asserted that the project is part of an endeavour to invite the world's best education talent in his era of globalization by developing this education city as a hub of learning.3. having heard the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that it has been repeatedly held by hon'ble the supreme court that no writ petition would be competent after the announcement of award. for the afore-mentioned view, we place reliance on the judgments of hon'ble the supreme court in the cases star wire (india) ltd. v. state of haryana : (1996)11scc698 , municipal council ahmednagar v. shah hyder beig : air2000sc671 and c. padma v. dy. secretary to the government of tamil nadu : (1997)2scc627 .4. we are further of the view that the land is being acquired for a laudable purpose of establishing education city in the multi functional urban complex which is situated on the national highway 1 in sonepat. the education city is being developed as a knowledge city which is likely to have top class infrastructure and support services to attract world class educational institutes to open their campuses there. the effort is to attract the world's best education talent in this era and make the education city as hub of learning by taking the maximum advantage of globalisation. therefore, interference of the court in such a project would not be warranted.for the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.