meH couRt OF cHHAmseAm-i, BlLAsPUR » _WP (227) No.4381lzoos ’ - PETITIONER< Kamaiieet Kaur, 45 years, ' " ,. Wd./o Sa'twant Singh Gill, Pandri, Bus Stand, Ravi Nagar, Shukla Colony, Raipur ‘ ” Versus RESPONDENT State Transport Authority, Raipur ‘ (CG) ’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONS!!!UTION OF INDIA V :’ Agpea‘ra’nce’ : :i Mr. Shashan'k Thakur,’ Panel Lawyer for the respondent. — Mr;Raja Sharrha, Counsel for the petitioner. W ORAL ORDER (18.03.2010) sumL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. Being aggrieved with the order dated 04.04.2008 passedjby the VS.T.A., RaipurLthe petitioner had tilled’ an {appeal before the $.T.A.T. which waswbarred by iimitation. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. However, eorne wrong facts were mentioned in the applleation, therefore, the petitioner tiled an ~ application “tinder Order 6 Rule 17 of (C.P.C._foramend_ment l‘of the applicationfm condonation of delay. The S.T.A.T did not permit the amendment in the application for condonation ~ of delay and the application praying for such amendment was dismissed. Mr. Raja Skharma, iearned counsel appearing Von - behalf of thef petitioner submits that the petitioner may be r permitted to-iNithdraw thie petition with liberty to tile a fresh - application for condonation of delay before the S.T.A.T by ~ ‘raisirigail the grounds and mentioning all materiai facts, and r