\\b PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ’ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICL OF INDIA $7 Kulraj Singh, 36 years, s/o Malkit Singh, Pandri Bus Stand, Ravi Nagar, Shukla Colony, Raipur, By General Attorney : Akashdeep Gill, 20 yrs., S/o Lakhwant Singh Gill, Mahendra Travels, Pandri, Raipur (co). Vs. State Transport Authority, Raipur CG E 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION Appearance: Mr. Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer, for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (14.01.2010) \ SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim application filed for condonation of delay in tiling the appeal has not been disposed of so far. He also submits that this writ petition may be disposed of With liberty to file a detailed affidavit before the STAT, Raipur. Permission granted. Accordingly, W.P(227) No.4380 of 2009 is disposed of as Withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/— g 6\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR W1 P ‘227l No. 4-380 of 2009 v j? ‘ men coumj 9F cHHATfr§sGARH BILAsPuR v WP !227l NO.4381I2009 ‘ PETITIQNER- Kamaueet Kaur 45years Wd lo Satwant Smgh Gm Pandn Bus Stand Raw Nagar Shukla Coiony, Ralpur . V$rsus State Transport Authority Raipur (CG) . RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE k, CONSTITUT F DI :" Agggaranc Mr RaJa Sharma Counsel for the petitioner Mr Shashank Thakur Panel Lawyer for the ro$pondent ORAL ogggn (13.03.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard. r 0 Being aggrieved with the order dated 04042008 l‘passed by the STA Ratpur the petttroner had fled an i appeal before the S TAT which was barred by limitation - Therefore the petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay along With an affidaVit However some wrong facts were mentioned in the application therefore the petitioner fled an > application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C P C for amendment ~of the application for condonation of delay The S TA T did V not pennrt the amendment in the application for condonation I of delay and the application praying for such amendment was dismissed I Mr Raja Sharma learned counsel appearing on > behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be » permitted to Withdraw this petition With liberty to tile a fresh application for condonation of delay before the S TAT by aising all the grounds and mentioning at! material facts and f r 2 ‘ 9 WP (227} NO.4381I200 /—~‘N 172 -~the S.=l'.A.T. may be directgd _tp dispose of the said application in accordance with-law Mr. Shashank Thakur learned Panel Lawyer appeanng on behalf of the respondent opposes the said arguments r Considering the facts and clrcumstances of the case particularly consrdering the clrcumstance that the matter Is still at preliminary stage and the sTAT after dlsmlssmg the a application for amendment of the application fled for condonatlon of delay has not dismissed-the apphcatron for - condonation ofdelay till date and the samels still pending before the S.T:A‘~.T., as stated by learnedcounsel for the r petitioner, l am of‘the opinion that presentis a fit case in which ' the petitioner“ may be. permitted towithdravythispetitionwrth liberty to file a fresh application for condonation, of delay in fling the appeal before the S T A T Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as r withdrawn With the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. Needless to say that if such an application is filed, it shall be disposed of on its own merits in accordance with law. r -No order as to costs. sd/_ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ‘ ~