2^ 'TSET "4l'i|id-4, aflly'is, fs|<vii'yli,< *<MCTI a»NI«ta sn^i 'T^? (i?l3q'i.'si) 311^1 ^il 1<') 'cWT <*ll^l iti+licti C«tiWtt^d '»ii^?i S.B. HOBPBLE SHltl DHIRENDRA MISHISA. J. W.P.(C1 N0. 3266 OF 2007 PBTmOBER fNoa applicanfc No.l of Versus 1. 16.7.2008 Shri Rnmalrnnt Paudey, Shri Bhaskar Pvasi. PL foi) *l<l[<'l<i1-< Mlfcfl 'Ef ftlzt <fatt;i< ^siRmsn^i CLB 2270FTHB CONSTITimON OF INDIA. Basant Roadways Through : Managiug Partner Alok Agrawal, S/o Late R.S. Agrawal, ! Aged about 47 years, R/o. Seth Basant Lal Mai'g, Am.bikapLU', DiBtl. Aiubiaspur, i State Transport Aiithority, i Of tlie State of Chliattisgai-h, i: DKS Rhaxvan, Raipiir (CG) State Transport AppeUate Tribunal, CUiattisgarh, Raipur (CG) ! Secretary, i State Transport Authonty, Statc ofCG, at Raipur. ! Hridavaaand Tiwari 1 Bus Operastor, i .^mbikapur (CG) Nauuiakala, cdunsel for the petitioner. fhe State. S'SiStl Wft? gSlTCFT, lM^i<!l|i«l —FS/I97—3/2008 —40,000. —<-22__J + ^ XI-HG—78 ~5^ '^l'41<yl<4, ®tlly'i|(o,fsicnK-l^ SII^T '!PRT (1clt3aTSSi) an^r qsr !<•){+ ^?qi 311^1 ^qNi- TOnwnfCTan^i 2- ^pireroh tm?ff •iffsv <r«i^i< iTstfgi This petition is du-ected by the State Transport AppeB^te respondeut No. 4 for condonu|i^ aUowed. lougr ;a res/ision of tlela^ Grievance of fhe petitiou^r to fhe petitioner by orier date< respondent No. 4 preferred application for condoaation respondent No. 4 to file app4< affidavit on two occasions aa< condonation of delav whereas saine was filed belatedly witttout delay. I have heard leam.ed coubsel for the petitioner. From. perusal of the imj:}' considerina the fact tliat fhe t' ;auist the order of Annexure P/ 1 passed Tribunal whereby the application of the delay ui fiting revision, has been is fhat stage camage pennit was issued 14.8.2006. Agaiust the above order, fhe on 28.10.2006 wifhout ffliag any However, fhe tribunal aflowed the ;ation for condonation of delay as also 1 ultimatety, atlowed the application for revision was liable for disnussal as fhe aiiy application for condonatiou of tbe igned order it appears fhat fhe tribunal ;visioa was filed wifh fhe aveniient fhat respoudent No. 4 came to l^now about passiag of the order dated 14.8.2006 only on 2.9.2006 •^•hen he applied for certified copy of tlte same and received fUe copy ojlly on 29.9.2006 and fheieaffer, filed the revision on 28.10.2006, wifhib the time allowed for filing of revision, allowed fhe application subse^uenfly filed by fhe respondent No. 4 for condonationofdelaysupporte^withtheaf&davit. ., ,.„ WSS2" ^- f, ~^,./' XI-HC—78 ~S:Sf ^|'i)ldA), ©•ttly'is,f^fR?y sn^r 1ra?7 C^??3^e?) STi^Ti qil k-Ush 'OSH 3?T^T ^^i<^ 'FRTOR "HftTI sn^i 3 ^RfeFfrt 'WRlf tf feCT WFRK ^T 3lf?FT SiR?; !n fhe considered opiai^n of fhis Coiirt, fhere is no iUegality, infirmity or jurisdictional en^r committed b}r the learued tiibunal warraating interference ia exe^cise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Aj^-ondingly, fhe petition being devoid of substance is disinissed at the atlmission stage itself. ! Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ _^