ORDER Pandey, J. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 18th October 1961 by which the petitioner's appeal against an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, dated 28th November 1958 was dismissed as barred by time. In order to appreciate the controversy it is necessary to give a few dates. The order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, was passed on 28th November 1958. Thereupon, on 1st December 1958 the petitioner applied for copy by registered post and, on the following day, he remitted by money order the copying charges. By a communication dated 6th January 1959 the petitioner was informed that his application for a permit was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner received this communication on 9th January 1959. After this, by a communication dated 19th January 1959, which the petitioner received on 23rd January 1959, he was intimated that he had to deposit Rs. 2 more for the copy which he required. The required amount was duly remitted by money order which was received on 29th January 1959. Following this, the required copy was received by the petitioner on 31st January 1959 and he filed the appeal on 16th February 1959. The period of limitation governing appeals to the State Transport Appellate Authority was contained in Rule 80 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949, of the United State of Gwalior, Indore and Malwa (Madhya Bharat). That Rule read as follows: The authority to decide an appeal against the orders of a Regional Transport Authority under clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of section 64 of the Act shall be the Chairman and two members of the United State Transport Authority appointed by the Government, and any person preferring an appeal against the order of a Regional Transport Authority in respect of such matters shall, within thirty days of the receipt of such order, do so in writing to the Secretary to the United State Transport Authority in the form of a memorandum (in duplicate) setting forth concisely the grounds of objection to the order of the Regional Transport Authority, accompanied by a certified copy of that order. It is clear from the Rule that an appeal therein mentioned had to be filed "within thirty days of the receipt of such order" meaning the order of a Regional Transport Authority sought to be challenged in the appeal. In our opinion, it is implicit in the rule that a copy of the order had to be supplied to the party before the limitation could, commence to run against him. This is in keeping with sub-section (7} of section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which requires a Regional Transport Authority refusing an application for a permit of any kind to give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. In Messrs Pravin Transport Indore and Others v. Haji Nazirbhai and Others (1) Khan and Shiv Dayal JJ, also took the view that time began to run only from the date of the receipt of the order. In this view, we do not see how the appeal filed by the petitioner could be regarded as barred by time. It appears from the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority that it was in error in regarding the date of mere intimation of rejection of the petitioner's application (6th January 1959 or 9th January 1959) as the crucial date from which time began to run against the petitioner. That Authority further took into consideration the fact that the petitioner's application for copy was not a good application because the full amount of fee requisite for the copy had not been sent. As we have shown the considerations were not relevant when the petitioner received the order, and not merely an intimation of disposal of his application, on 31st January 1959. From that date the appeal received by the State Transport Appellate Authority on 16th February 1959, is clearly within thirty days prescribed by Rule 80 (a). The order of the State Transport Appellate Authority suffers from an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record. That being so, it cannot be sustained. The case would inevitably go back to that Authority which must now dispose of the appeal with all possible dispatch. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 18th October 1961 is quashed. That being so, it cannot be sustained. The case would inevitably go back to that Authority which must now dispose of the appeal with all possible dispatch. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the State Transport Appellate Authority dated 18th October 1961 is quashed. The contesting respondent No. 3 shall bear his own costs and pay those of the petitioner to whom the security amount shall also be refunded. Hearing fee Rs. 100. Final Result : Allowed