IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 480 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.6963/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): WRIT PETITIONER ------------------------------------- K.K.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, KARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): 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. MR.I.V.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.480 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.6963 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 17/06/2008 upholding Ext.P11 decision of the STAT, where the Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the M.V.A.R.P. As can be seen from the judgment, the case was adjourned on five occasions and the petitioner had not filed an affidavit explaining the delay noticed in paragraph 2 of the judgment. 2. Though, the judgment was rendered as early as on 17/06/2008, this review is now filed along with an affidavit of the counsel explaining the delay mentioned in the judgment and also that of the petitioner explaining the delay in filing the review petition. 3. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the petitioner explaining the delay in filing the review petition. Apart from stating R.P.No.480/2009 -2- that, he repeatedly contacted the counsel for an affidavit, and that the affidavit was received only on 26/04/2009, this petition has not explained the efforts that he took. Thus the delay in filing the review petition has not been explained in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, I am not satisfied that at this belated stage, the delay should be condoned and the review should be considered. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg