ORDER: Since the question involved in both the writ petitions are identical, the same are taken up for joint disposal with the consent of the respective counsel. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the proceedings of the first respondent. Admittedly the appeal was presented with certain defects. The papers were returned to rectify those defects, granting a week’s time to the petitioner. The appeal papers were not represented within the time granted by the Tribunal for rectification. Some delay occurred in representation of the papers and hence the petitioners filed a petition to condone the delay of 15 days in representing the papers in both the cases. 3. The Tribunal under the impugned proceedings rejected the appeal on the ground that there is no valid and acceptable reason to condone the delay of 15 days in representing the papers. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no delay in presenting the papers. However, the Tribunal has returned the papers for rectification of certain defects and there is delay of 15 days in representing the papers. The Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay, since valid reasons were given in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the petition for condonation of the delay. The second respondent did not consider the reasons for the delay. Hence, the order is liable to be set aside. 5. On the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay, since the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Hence the order of the Tribunal is valid. 6. I considered both the contentions. There is no dispute that the appeal was preferred by the petitioner within 30 days, as provided under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1989. The papers were returned for rectification of certain defects, granting a week’s time for the petitioner to resumbit the papers. The petitioner did not resubmit the papers within the stipulated time. They resubmitted the papers only with a delay of 15 days. 7. The papers were returned for rectification of certain defects, granting a week’s time for the petitioner to resumbit the papers. The petitioner did not resubmit the papers within the stipulated time. They resubmitted the papers only with a delay of 15 days. 7. Even though the Tribunal has rejected the appears on the ground that there is no valid ground to condone the delay, it is for this court to consider as to whether the Tribunal has got power to entertain the application for condonation of the delay. Only if the Tribunal has got power to condone the delay, then only the impugned order can be set aside and the matter can be remitted back for fresh disposal. If the Tribunal has no power to entertain the application for condoning the delay, then it is unnecessary to remit the matter to the Tribunal by setting aside the order. Equally if the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for condoning the delay, then the order of rejection of the appeal can be sustained on that ground. 8. Hence the question for consideration before this Court is whether the Tribunal has got power to entertain the application to condone the delay or not? 9. Rule 157 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules deals with the appeal which is as follows: "157. Appeal: (1) An appeal under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.89 shall lie to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal within thirty days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against: Provided that, if any doubt arises as to the date of receipt of the order by the person aggrieved, the decision of the Tribunal shall be final; Provided further that where an appeal is presented within thirty days of the date of receipt by the person aggrieved of the order appealed against, but is returned by the Tribunal for re-presentation in the prescribed manner, as if such appeal is represented in the manner prescribed and within the date, if any, specified by the Tribunal for the re-presentation of the appeal, it shall be deemed to have been presented within the prescribed time for the purpose of this rule; Provided also that no one memorandum of appeal shall relate to more than one order and be signed by more than one person. (2) Under clause (g) of Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.89 the following orders of a Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary and the State Transport Authority or its Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries shall also be appealable subject to the restrictions laid down in Sub-rule (1), namely; (a) an order granting or refusing to grant an extension or variation or curtailment of an existing route or area covered by a permit; (b) an order fixing or refusing to fix a schedule of timings for a stage carriage or a service of stage carriages;(c) an order revising or refusing to revise a schedule of timings for stage carriage of a service of stage carriages; (d) an order granting or refusing to grant additional trips of service of stage carriages; (e) an order granting permission under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.82 or Sec.83. (f) an order granting or refusing to grant replacement of a vehicle covered by a permit by another vehicle of a different capacity; (g) an order granting renewal of a permit; (h) an order refusing counter-signature of a permit; (i) an order varying the conditions attached to a permit or attaching to a permit further conditions; (j) an order as provided under Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.88 imposing conditions or varying any condition attached to a permit while countersigning the permit; and (k) an order fixing postal subsidy in respect of stage carriages. (3) The provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963), will not be applicable to appeals filed under this rule." Sub-rule (3) of Rule 157 of the said Rules specifically excludes the application of the Limitation Act. Hence, the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable for the proceedings before the Tribunal. If that be so, the Statute should provide the jurisdiction for the authorities to entertain the application for condoning the delay. Second proviso to Rule 157(1) specifies that if the appeal is presented within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order by the person aggrieved and the same is returned by the Tribunal for representation in the prescribed manner and if such appeal is represented in the manner prescribed and within the date, if any, specified by the Tribunal for the representation of the appeal, it shall be deemed to have been presented within the prescribed time for the purpose of this Rule. 10. 10. In this case, the Tribunal has granted a week’s time for the petitioner for re-presentation after the rectification of the defects, within one week period granted by the Tribunal, then only the appeal could be treated to have been filed within the prescribed time, when the petitioner failed to represent the papers within the time granted by the Tribunal, then naturally the appeal cannot be treated to have been filed within the prescribed time specified in the Rule. 11. Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1989 is in pari materia with Rule 157(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence when the petitioner failed to represent the papers within the time specified by the Tribunal, the appeal cannot be treated to have been filed within the time prescribed under the Rules. In that case, the presentation of the appeal itself is to be construed as learned by limitation. In that case, only if the Tribunal is conferred with the power to condone the delay, the Tribunal can entertain the application for condonation of the delay in order to entertain the appeal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application to condone the delay. When the Tribunal has lack of jurisdiction for entertaining the application for condoning the delay in representation, naturally the appeal shall stand rejected. Hence, the order of the Tribunal is sustained for the reasons stated above. 12. According the writ petitions are dismissed.