IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 6963 of 2008(D) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.K.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, KARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 4. A.I.VARGHESE, S/O.THOMMANKUTTY, AITHOKARAN, KANAKAMALA, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6963 OF 2008 - D ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P2 is a grant in favour of the petitioner, which was revoked by Ext.P6. Ext.P2 was revoked for the reason that the current records were not produced within the time permitted under Rule 159 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Petitioner filed a revision along with an application for condonation of delay and that was rejected by Ext.P11 order of the Tribunal dated 2nd of February, 2008. Consequently, the revision petition itself was dismissed by Ext.P12 order as time barred. 2. When the case came up for orders on 28/2/2008, this court passed an order that there is no explanation regarding the delay from 17/7/2007 to 4/12/2007 and at that time, counsel for the petitioner sought time for filing an affidavit explaining the said delay. Thereafter the case was posted on 5 occasions and even as on date, the affidavit explaining the delay is not forthcoming and request for adjournment is again repeated. I am not satisfied that any further adjournment should be granted. 3. In view of the unexplained delay in the matter, I endorse the view taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P11. Consequently, the dismissal of the revision petition is also liable to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE Rp