d l, aWWW W i I :mm u‘i 20° 311wm (Wu) am 311%?! m‘ mam 311%“ mr'daw mar e: are”:m \ f as arm am S.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDM i MISHRA, J t 7 W.P. C '0. 2079 OF 2008 WRIT PETTI‘ION UNDER CLE 2247 OF THE CONSTITUTION- OF INDIAJ {PETITIONER [Non agglicant No.1 of the STAT1 : ’ Basant Roadways Through : Managing Farmer Alok Kumar Agrawal, S] o Late R‘S. Agrawai, Aged about 47 yéars, v R! o. Seth Basallt Lal Mal‘g, Disu. Ambiaspur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS 1, StatE. TrauSport Authari’ty, Of tht Statc of ChhaftiSgarh, DKS Rhawan, Raipur District Raipur. (CG) 2. I Sfate Transport AppeHatE Tribunal, Chhattisgaxh, Raipur (CG) 3. Secmtaly, Statc Transport Authoxity, Stats of CG, at Raipur. 4. — Hm'davanand Tiwari Bus Operaator, Namnakala, Ambikapur (CG} 16.7.2008 Shri Ramakant Pandey, 81m Bhaskar Pyasi, PL foLr caunsel for the State. the petitioner. 1 mm (Wu) Mmiz‘‘iim‘ ‘wmm 'mwmfzam 1 ‘ r Imm wW This petition is directed aga Jist this order of‘Annexur‘e Pf 1 passed by the State Transport Appellate Triblinal whereby the appHcation of respondent N0. 4 'for condoning the delay in filing revision, has been allowed. Grievance of the penuonei 1 , that stage carriage permit was issued vto the petitioner bv Older dated 1 1 8.2006. Against the above order, the respondent No. 4 preferred rev1s1011 on 28.10.2006 Without fihng any application for condonation of de y. However, the tribunal allowed the respondent No. 4 to file applica 'on for condonation of delay as also affidavit on two occasions and timately, allowed the application for condonation of delay Whereas the revision was liable for dismissal as the same was tiled belatedly Witho t any application for condonation of delay. ' l have heard learned couns lfor the petitioner. From perusal of the impu ed order it appears that the tribunal considering the fact that the rev sion was filed with the averment that respondent No. 4 came. to k about passing of the order dated 14.8.2006 only on 2.9.2006 wh n he applied for certified copy of the same and received the copy only on 29.9.2006 and thereafter, tiled the revision on 28.10.2006, within allowed the application Subsequ ntly filed by the respondent No. 4 for condonation of delay supported w th the ahidavit'. time allowed for filing of revision, e n immm WWW $ In the considered opiniOJ mfumity‘ or jurisdictional e110 warranting interference in exerc the Constitution of India. wm \ 1 of Ms Court; there iS no illegality, r committ¢d by thg learned tribunal AO ise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of mission stage itself. t Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra , Judge substance is dismissed at the ad :ordingly, the petition being devoid of w