IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WA.No. 1838 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.25202/2008 Dated 20/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- RAJEEVAN, S/O.KANARAN, KULANGARATH HOUSE, CHERAPURAM P.O., KAKKATTIL., VATAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, VATAKARA. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, VATAKARA. 4. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.M. JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WRIT APPEAL No.1838 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH J, Petitioner is the appellant. The appellant approached this court challenging Exts. P5, P6 and P7. He had submitted Ext.P4 explanation to Ext.P3 show cause notice. By Ext.P5, after considering the reply and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the statutory authority proceeded to cancel the permit given to the petitioner for running stage carriage. The reason was that the stage carriage was involved in an accident, which culminated in the death of two persons. The matter was taken up before the Tribunal and by Ext.P6 the Tribunal confirmed the order. Petitioner preferred a review petition, which came to be unsuccessful vide Ext.P7. It is challenging the said decisions that the appellant filed the writ petition. 2. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter found no ground to disagree with the concurrent findings of the statutory authorities. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that he is having financial difficulties. He contended that no statement was taken from the passengers. 3. We do not think that this is a case where interference at our hands is called for. Judicial review is meant to be a supervisory jurisdiction. We cannot re-appreciate materials. We cannot hold that there were no materials for the reasoning and conclusion. The writ appeal fails and it is dismissed. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sb.