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