IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 558 of 2008(N) ------------------------ PETITIONER: -------------- K.M.SASIDHARAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, KYMOOKIL HOUSE, AYMANAM, P.O.KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 558 OF 2008 N ===================== Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T Appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.9.06 passed by the 1st respondent declining regular permit was rejected by the Tribunal as per Ext.P1 order. In Ext.P1 order, it is stated that there was a delay of 312 days. It is also stated that the appellant had filed an affidavit that the order was not communicated to him and hence there was no delay in filing the appeal. However, the report of the 2nd respondent indicated that the impugned order was despatched from his office on 15/12/06 and on this basis, the Tribunal concluded on the delay of 312 days and rejected the appeal. 2. However, the contention of the petitioner is that there was no delay and that the Tribunal has not taken note of his averment in Ext.P3 affidavit dated 4th October 2007 filed before WPC 558/08 :2 : the Tribunal that the impugned order was served on the petitioner only on 18/9/07. 3. If as contended by the petitioner the order was served only on 18/9/07, appeal filed by him was within time. However, this contention of the petitioner has not been taken note of by the Tribunal. On the other hand, Tribunal has gone merely by the report of the 2nd respondent. This approach does not seem to be proper. 4. Therefore quashing Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal, I direct that the matter shall be reconsidered by the Tribunal with notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Rp