IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 45 of 2007 Prashant Jaiswal ……… Appellant Versus Ashok Kumar and two others ……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Date of Decision: 19.02.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) None had appeared on behalf of the appellant on the last two dates of hearing. None is present on behalf of the appellant even today. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view, that the absence of the appellant should not restrain us to dispose of the instant special appeal. 2. The appellant had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No.1657 of 2006, so as to assail the order passed by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttaranchal dated 29.07.2006. The aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25.04.2007. 3. The instant special appeal has been preferred by the appellant, so as to assail the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.04.2007 disposing of Writ Petition (M/S) No.1657 of 2006. 4. This Court disposed of a large number of special appeals collectively, wherein the main order was passed in Special Appeal No.170 of 2009 (S.K. Srivastava versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun and two others) by an order dated 11.09.2009 by holding that the special appeal was not competent against the order passed by a learned Single Judge, wherein a challenge had been raised from an order passed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Herein also the appellant had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1657 of 2006, so as to assail the order dated 29.07.2006 passed by Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttaranchal under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That being so in view of the order passed by this Court in S.K. Srivastava’s case (supra), we are satisfied, that the instant special appeal is not maintainable. 5. The instant special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) ( J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 19.02.2010 P.Singh