JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J Heard. 1. Both these writ appeals are being adjudicated simultaneously for the reason that the question of law involved in both the cases is one and same. 2. By order dated 02/12/2021 the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur imposed a tax liability upon the appellant along with penalty and interest for the vehicles bearing registration Nos.CG-04-EA-0167 and CG-04-EA-0166 in different cases to the extent of Rs.12,90,549/- tax. Such levy was subject of challenge in the separate writ petitions by the appellant before this Court. This Court by initial order dated 04/05/2022 dismissed the said writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 3. Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1991'). The said appeals were barred by time as were not filed within a period of thirty days as prescribed under Rule 18 (5) of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991') and the payment of the penalty was also not made deposited as per proviso clause to Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, 1991. The appeals having been dismissed on the ground that no application was filed to condone the delay, the same was subject of further challenge before this Court in two separate writ petitions bearing WPT Nos.31 & 28 of 2023. The learned Single Judge by its order dated 27/01/2023 has dismissed both the petitions on the ground that no interference is called for in the order of the appellate authority on the ground that no sufficient grounds have been shown before the appellate authority to condone the delay. Being aggrieved by such order, the present appeals. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellate authority at the threshold dismissed the application on the ground that no application for condonation of delay was filed. He would further submit that as per Rule 18 (6) of the Rules, 1991, even if appeal is dismissed, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided to the appellant so that the appellant would have been in a position to explain sufficient reason, if any, to condone the delay. He would further submit that as per Rule 18 (6) of the Rules, 1991, even if appeal is dismissed, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided to the appellant so that the appellant would have been in a position to explain sufficient reason, if any, to condone the delay. He would further submit that application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act can be considered by the appellate Court in view of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as, Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991, do not specifically prohibits the entertainment of appeal beyond the period of 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, since there is no specific exclusion of the limitation Act, the appellate authority should have given the opportunity of hearing to explain the cause. With respect to the delay in filing this appeal before this Court, certain reasons have been assigned and would submit that the appeal may be adjudicated on its merits. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that proviso clause to Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, 1991 mandates that statutory deposition of imposition which is levied is required to be deposited, which the appellant has failed and apart from that no application to condone the delay was filed. Under these circumstances, there was no other option left with the appellate authority except to dismiss the appeal. He would further submit that, therefore, under those circumstances, when these facts were challenged before the learned Single Bench, the Court has passed the order which is well merited and do not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. So far as filing of these writ appeals before this Court is concerned, there is delay of 91 days in filing WA No.268 of 2023 and there is delay of 97 days in filing WA No.288 of 2023. We went through the reasons assigned in the application to condone the delay filing these writ appeals. Having considered the same, which is supported by the affidavit, wherein the reasons have been assigned that the father of the appellant, who was managing the affairs, was seriously ill and because of the ailment was admitted in the hospital, consequently, the delay has occurred. Having considered the same, which is supported by the affidavit, wherein the reasons have been assigned that the father of the appellant, who was managing the affairs, was seriously ill and because of the ailment was admitted in the hospital, consequently, the delay has occurred. Having considered the same, in order to advance the cause of justice, we condone the delay of 91 & 97 days respectively in filing the appeals. 8. Now coming back to the issue, the history of the dispute would show that after the initial imposition of tax liability which includes the tax and the penalty as also the interest on 02/12/2021, two separate writ petitions were filed before this Court. The said two writ petitions were adjudicated by order dated 04/05/2022, whereby the Court redirected the appellant to avail the alternative remedy under the Adhiniyam, 1991. 9. Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, 1991 speaks about the filing of appeal. For ready reference, Section 20 (a) of the Adhiniyam, 1991 and proviso clause are reproduced herein below:- “20. Appeal- Any Person.- (a) aggrieved by an order made for levy of tax or for penalty imposed under Section 13, or (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx Provided that no appeal shall be entertained unless the amount of tax and penalty levied, in respect of which the appeal has been preferred has been paid.” 10. Admittedly, before the initial writ petition was filed, whereby the imposition of penalty was challenged instead of filing the appeal against the amount of tax and the penalty levied, the appeal was filed without payment of amount. The appellate authority summarily dismissed the appeal on two grounds that (i) no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed to condone the delay and (ii) no tax was deposited before the appeal was filed. 11. The Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 is framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, therefore, has the statutory effect. Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991 speaks about the filing of appeal within a period of thirty days. Relevant part of the Rule 18 (1) is reproduced herein below:- 18. 11. The Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Rules, 1991 is framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 24 of the Chhattisgarh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, therefore, has the statutory effect. Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991 speaks about the filing of appeal within a period of thirty days. Relevant part of the Rule 18 (1) is reproduced herein below:- 18. Appeals.- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed by any officer under the Act or these rules against which an appeal lies, may within thirty days of the date of the knowledge of the order prefer an appeal to the Transport Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. 12. Likewise, Rule 18 (5) & 18 (6) of the Rules, 1991 which would also be relevant are reproduced herein below:- “18 (5) If the memorandum of appeal does not comply with all or any of the requirements of sub-rule (2) of this rule the appeal may be summarily rejected: Provided that no appeal shall be summarily rejected under this sub-rule unless the appellant is given such opportunity as the appellate authority thinks fit to amend such memorandum of appeal as to bring it in conformity with the requirements of the said sub-rule. 18 (6) An appeal may also be summarily rejected on any other ground which shall be reduced in writing by the appellate authority: Provided that before an order summarily rejecting an appeal under this sub-rule is passed, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 13. The submission of the appellant that before the appeal was summarily dismissed, the authority should have given an opportunity as per subrule (6) of the Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991. In our considered opinion, the same holds logic, inasmuch as, sub-rule (6) of Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991 contemplates that before the appeal is summarily rejected, the appellant shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. Meaning thereby, it would include itself to correct the defect, if any, including payment of amount and filing of application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 14. Section 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, which would be relevant is reproduced herein below:- “29. Savings. Meaning thereby, it would include itself to correct the defect, if any, including payment of amount and filing of application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 14. Section 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act, which would be relevant is reproduced herein below:- “29. Savings. - (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.” 15. Reading of the same along with Rule 18 of the Rules, 1991, which prescribes the limitation of thirty days, it do not show that there is a specific exclusion of thirty days exists and the statute uses the word “may”- to say- may within thirty days file an appeal. Therefore, the application of Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act would not be barred to zexplain the delay by virtue of Rule 18 (5) & 18 (6) of the Rules, 1991 read with Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 27.01.2023 is set aside. The appellant shall be at liberty to prefer the appeal within a further period of thirty days before the concerned appellate authority under Section 20 of the Act, 1991 and he would be entitled to prefer the appeal only on compliance of proviso to Section 20 of the Act, 1991. After such appeal is filed, he shall be given opportunity to explain the delay showing the sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In such case, the appellate authority shall be at liberty to exercise its power by its own discretion considering the facts of this case. 17. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation, both the appeals stand disposed of.