JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Heard. 2. The instant bunch of appeals are against the common order passed by the learned Single Bench on 5.5.2022 in WPC No.1800/2022 and other connected petitions, whereby, the petitions filed by the State Authority and private respondents/Transporters against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which is constituted under Section 89(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act, 1988”), were dismissed with specific directions. 3. The issue in these writ appeals is similar, therefore, they are being adjudicated simultaneously. 4. The nucleus of the dispute starts from an application, which was filed by the Transporters for grant of stage carriage permit in the month of September 2017. The order of the RTA dated 19.12.2019 would show that after the application for grant of permit was filed, it could not be decided in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 (in short “the Rules, 1994”). As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994, the prescribed time limit for disposal of the application for grant of stage carriage permit is 60 days. The Rules, 1994 was promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 159, 176, 211 and 213 of the Act, 1988. Since the application for stage carriage permit was not decided, the respondents herein preferred a writ petition before the High Court, wherein, this Court vide order dated 22.8.2019 directed to dispose of the application filed for stage carriage permit within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It was upon thereafter, the order dated 19.12.2019 was passed by the RTA, wherein, a direction was issued that after communication of this order, within a period of 30 days, the Transporters shall obtain the permit and start plying of the vehicles. The case of the respondents/Transporters before the learned Single Bench and the STAT was that this order was not communicated to them. The order of the learned Single Judge would show that the issue that the order granting permit dated 19.12.2019 was not communicated to the Transporters, was not in much dispute. 5. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes the procedure, which reads as under : “74. The order of the learned Single Judge would show that the issue that the order granting permit dated 19.12.2019 was not communicated to the Transporters, was not in much dispute. 5. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 prescribes the procedure, which reads as under : “74. Procedure on receipt of Permit Application and Manner of disposal thereof - (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) Transport Authority shall after considering the application, as per provisions of law, pass an appropriate order thereon and communicate.” 6. A plain reading of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 would show that it is the mandate duty casted upon the authority to communicate the order of grant of permit. It is not in much dispute before this Court that the grant of permit was not communicated to the respondents. In the month of March 2020, for the first time, the respondents came to know that the order of grant of permit has been passed in their favour and thereafter, they applied for issuance of permit. 7. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact, which is recorded in the order of the learned Single Judge, that the Supreme Court on 10.1.2022, on a Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 and other connected application, including suo motu writ petition, extended the period of limitation with respect to judicial and quasi judicial functions on account of nation-wide lock-down, which started w.e.f. 25.3.2020. After ease out of such period, subsequently, the respondent-Transporters applied for issuance of permit on 17.12.2020 followed by a reminder in the month of September 2021. Eventually, since no order was passed, an appeal was filed before the STAT, which came to be decided by the order dated 29.1.2022, whereby, the STAT passed a direction to issue permit within a period of 7 days from the date of the said order and the compliance report was directed to be filed before the STAT . The said order of the STAT was subject of challenge before the learned Single Judge, in different writ petitions. The learned Single Judge after evaluating all the facts, dismissed the writ petitions, however, para 11 & 12 of the order of the STAT were deleted, wherein, the cost was imposed on the concerned officers. However, the other part of the order passed by the STAT with respect to compliance of issuance of permit, was maintained. The learned Single Judge after evaluating all the facts, dismissed the writ petitions, however, para 11 & 12 of the order of the STAT were deleted, wherein, the cost was imposed on the concerned officers. However, the other part of the order passed by the STAT with respect to compliance of issuance of permit, was maintained. At this juncture, the appeals have been preferred by the State. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State/appellants would submit that the order passed by the STAT would be non est for the reason that no order for refusal of grant of permit was passed. Section 89(1) of the Act, 1988 only empowers the STAT to exercise its jurisdiction in case of refusal of permit. He would further submit that the limitation, on the basis of the order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, cannot be extended in the facts of the present case, as it was only confined to judicial and quasi judicial functions. Hence, the appeal be allowed. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that the series of act would show that there has been deliberate omission of non issuance of grant of permit. Learned counsel would further submit that Section 89 of the Act, 1988 though speaks about appeal on cancellation of permit but the case of the respondents would be that despite grant of regular permit, the permit was not issued on papers, therefore, it would amount to 'refusal' and consequently, the benefit cannot be extended to the State. Hence, the order of learned Single Judge is well-merited, which does not call for any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents of the Writ Court and the order passed by the STAT. 11. Rule 74(4) of the Rules, 1994 casts a duty on the Officers of the concerned Authority to adjudicate an application for grant of stage carriage permit within a period of 60 days. The facts show that initially in the month of September 2017, an application was made by the Transporters for grant of permit. 11. Rule 74(4) of the Rules, 1994 casts a duty on the Officers of the concerned Authority to adjudicate an application for grant of stage carriage permit within a period of 60 days. The facts show that initially in the month of September 2017, an application was made by the Transporters for grant of permit. The said application was not decided within a period of 60 days and as such, initially, the respondents preferred a writ petition before this Court, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed an order to adjudicate the application within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. Upon this, the initial order was passed by the RTA on 19.12.2019, by which, the permit was granted, however, the communication was not made, which was against sub-rule (3) of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994, which imposes a duty on the part of the RTA to communicate the order. It is also obvious that though the orders are passed and shelved, but, it is not expected from the public at large or the persons, who are interested, to have knowledge about the order. When the statutory duties are imposed upon the Authority to do a work in a certain manner, then, it has to be done in such manner only. Having not communicated the order passed by the RTA dated 19.12.2019, there cannot be automatic cancellation of such order after a period of time. The argument as advanced by the learned State Counsel that the order would lose its efficacy after the prescribed period of 30 days is erroneous. We decline to concur such submissions as the State Authority cannot be given advantage of their own wrong and it would be travesty of justice, if such proposition is followed. 12. The facts would show that in the month of March 2020, the respondents came to know about such order, whereby, the permit was granted, however, the nation-wide lock down started from 25.3.2020, which is also reflected in the order of the learned Single Judge. 12. The facts would show that in the month of March 2020, the respondents came to know about such order, whereby, the permit was granted, however, the nation-wide lock down started from 25.3.2020, which is also reflected in the order of the learned Single Judge. We further take judicial note of the fact that the Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 has extended the limitation of judicial and quasi judicial actions, which naturally would include the present facts of the case, inasmuch as, the grant of permit would be within the purview of quasi judicial action, therefore, the time lapsed passed by during the lock-down cannot run against the respondents. This would lead us to hold that the application filed subsequently by the respondents in the month of December 2020 to issue the physical permit would be within the legal domain and framework. The order of the STAT would further show that the reminder of the same was also given in the month of September 2020 but it remained dormant. 13. Under these circumstances, the respondents approached the STAT, which is the appellate authority. The submission of the State that no order has been passed, whereby, the permit has been refused cannot hold the sway in their favour for the reason that for all practical purposes, if the physical permit is not issued despite granting it on papers, which are kept below the heap of files in a RTA office, then, it would amount to ‘refusal’. The grant of physical permit turned into grant of physical issue of permit would allow the respondent- Transporters to ply the vehicles and if it is lost in the official files or not communicated, the effect would be the same that of refusal. The order of the learned Single Bench and the STAT, when both are read together would show that without any rhyme or reason, the benefit of grant of permit was held back and the Authority chose to issue the limited permit to other transporters other than the respondents herein, which speaks at large about the functions. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the direction given by the STAT, which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, to issue the physical permit within a period of 7 days. 15. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the direction given by the STAT, which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge, to issue the physical permit within a period of 7 days. 15. Consequently, all the appeals sans merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. 16. It is directed that the Officers of the concerned Authority shall issue physical permit to the respondents within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In absence thereof, a copy of the order would be placed in their Service Books, which would be subject of consideration for their official discharge of duties.