HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (C} No. 291 1of2QQ7 PETmONER : Akhileshwar Tiwari S/o Radhika Prasad Tiwari, aged about 50 years, Through Power of Attomey Holder Dhirendra Nath Tiwari S/o Hari Prasad Tiwari, aged about 40 years, R/o Patelpara, Ainbikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) \^ERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State Transport AppeUate Tribunal, Chhattisgarli, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarii at Raipur C.G. 3. The Secretary, Regional Transport AuthQrity,Bilaspui- (C.G.) 4. Abdul Rashid Khaa S/o Mohd. Gulam Rasul Khan aged about 60 years, R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja(C.G.) WK1T PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asmhotri. J. Present: ShriF.S.Khare, Advocateforthepetitioner. • Shri Shadiank Tliakur, Panel Lawyer fortiie State/respondent No. 1 to 3. Shri SantoshGupta, Advocate forthe respondent No. 4. ORALORDER (Passed on 24n day of November, 2008) 1. The petitioner, beina agsrieved by fhe order dated 11.10.2006 (Annexure P/8) whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was rejected cai the ground ofbeing time barred, has filed this petition. 2. The indisputable facts, in brie£ are that the respondent No. 4 made an application for change of timins of his bus on the route Ambikapur to Jashpur. The objection ofthe petitioner was considered and decision was taken on 05.04.2006 bytiie respondent No. 2. The formal order was issued on 11.05.2006. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 04.08.2006 after a delay of about 4 moirths. The revision of the petitioner was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner, iri his application for condonation of delay has not stated the grounds for condonation of delay except that fhe 4. petitioner came to known on 7.6.2006, why the petitioner came to know on 7.6.2006 when the objection was considered in presence ofthe petitioner and order was passed on 6.4.20006 and Ihereafter, Ihe bus ofthe petitioner as well as the respondents were romring oa the changed tuning, is not elear. Thus, Ihe revisional authority has correctly dismissed the applieation for condonatioa of delay, and consequently, the revision was dismissed as being time barred. The order impugned herein is neither perverae nor illegal or contrary and as such no interferenee is warranted. This Court, in exereise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on tlie face oflfae record, which is not infhe present case. In view ofthe foregoing and for Ifae reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Consequently, I.A. No. 1, for g-ant of interim relief and stay, also staids dismissed. -~—~ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit