http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 3128  of  1999

PETITIONER: M/S NORTHERN EXPRESS HIGHWAYS & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/03/2001

BENCH: A.P. Misra & B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT:

D E R Leave granted. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Heard learned counsel for the parties.

   The  appellants  challenge the order passed by the  High Court  dismissing  the  writ  petition  as  premature.   The grievance  of the appellants is that he made an  application for  the  grant of stage carriage permit as far back on  the 12th  November, 1998 but the same has yet not been  disposed of.   Thus the rejection of the appellants writ petition by the  High  Court as premature is unsustainable liable to  be set  aside.   The reply on behalf of the respondent is  that the  said application for the grant of permit was sent  only on  the  12th November, 1998, whereas the last date  of  the receipt  of the application was 31st August, 1998, hence  it was  rejected being time barred.  Thus the same was returned to the appellant along with the original bank draft by speed post with A.D.  on the 15th February, 1999.  Learned counsel for  the  appellant submits firstly that appellant  had  not knowledge  of this rejection and in any case this  rejection in view of Section 80 of Motor Vehicles Act is illegal and a nullity.

   Submission  on behalf of respondent is that there was  a scheme  for  the  unemployed youth by the State  of  Haryana which  is  annexed as Annexure R-2 which was  published  and notified  in  the  year 1998 under which  appellant  applied which  is  withdrawn  by  the   State  of  Haryana   through Notification dated 25th February, 2000.  Thus apart from the aforesaid  fact  of the rejection of the application of  the appellant, no relief can be granted on the said application. On  the other hand learned counsel for the appellant submits that  the application was not made under any Scheme but  was independently  under  Section 80 of the said Act.   However, this  is  disputed question of fact which has  neither  been raised  nor  adjudicated  by the High Court whose  order  is impugned  before us.  In view of this proper course open  to the  appellant  was  to have moved the High  Court  on  this subsequent   cause   of  action   instead  in  the   present proceedings.  Such a question cannot be raised for the first

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

time before this Court in the present proceedings.

   Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the appellants for moving the  High  Court  or  later recourse  to  any  other  remedy available to him in accordance with law.