00 <,.., HIGH CQURT OF JUDICATURECHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH ; HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. PETmQNEB RESPONDENTO WRIT PETITION N0.4639 of 2005. VijayKumar ChoudharyS/o Late Shri Jagdeven Choudhary, Choudhary Motor Service Main Road Distt.- Lohar Daga, Jharkhand. Versus 1. State Transport Appeallate Trtbunal Ralpur 2. Assistant Secretery State Transport Authority D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur Chhatttegarh 3. Regional Transport Authorfty Through- Secrefaiy D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Kishore Kumar Mantri S/o Late Fateh Chand Mantri Ratu Road, Ranchi Jharkhand. Present: Sihg Ajay Shrivastava, leamed counselforthepetitioner. Shri Yaswant Singh, leamed GA, for the State of Chhattisgarh. ORALORDER (Passed on 22m December, 200^ The petitioner has preferred a revision petition to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of counter signature and the said revision petition is psnding. In ftat revision p^tion, it appears ttiat the petitionw made an applicaUon for stay. That apptication has bean rejected by the STAT by the impugned order. 2. Heard learned counset forpeUtioner. 3. The order made under secUon 88(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is adverse to the petitjoner. Unless the pelittoner succeeds before the revisional authority, it is rieHher juat nor fair to grant fte tnterim order. .sfi Q 0 db »n- a-- 4. In that view of fce matter, the discreUon ©(ercisedby the STAT in rejecting the opptteaBon could not be faulted with. The writ petition is therafore, dismissed. However, the STAT is directod to dispose ofthe revision prefsrred by the petiUoner within ai period ofSKweeks fmm Uie date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 SdA- CbiefJustice e"°k';a/*