IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 5606 of 2007(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN, THEKKEVALLUSSERIL, NORTH GATE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM. 3. MOLLY GEORGE, CHERUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM. ADDL.4. R.SREEKUMAR, EDATTU HOUSE, KALLARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.7.3.2007 ON I.A.3626/07) R1, R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR R4 BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.5606/07 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 18.9.2006. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION MVARP NO.557/06 DATED 20.11.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 30.1.2007. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MVARP NO.557/06 DATED 31.3.2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT IN RESPECT OF STAGE CARRIAGE KL-5 R 6147. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE TIME SCHEDULE OF SC KL-5 R 6147. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.5606 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition was admitted and an order of stay of further proceedings was granted on 20.2.2007. That order is not extended thereafter. The writ petitioner contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had entertained a revision and decided that petition without calling for the records. It is further contended that the Tribunal had not heard the writ petitioner. The uncontroverted statement in the counter affidavit of the third respondent is that the petitioner and his counsel were heard and specific reference is made regarding the identity of the counsel, the date of postings and as to what transpired in each posting dates. In spite of time being given for such purpose, no reply affidavit is placed on record. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the STAT. There is WPC.5606/07 2 no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.19/04.