The writ petition challenging the State Transport Appellate Tribunal's order condoning delay in filing a revision was summarily dismissed. The court found the delay was properly explained and the tribunal order was sustainable.
The writ petition was dismissed summarily.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF THE CHHATT GARH AT BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION (227) NO. 7204 OF 2010
PETITIONER Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur, 43 Yrs., Wd/‘o Late Satwant Singh Gill, Shukla Colony, Raiatalab, Raipur.
Vs.
RESPONDENTS 1. State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh. '- 2. Kanker Roadways, Thro.’ Managing‘ Partner— Preetam Singh Garcha, Civil Lines, Raipur.
/\
WRIT P TiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF lNDlA
Appearance:
Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the respondents.
ORAL ORDER
(07.01.2011)
SUNIL KUNIAR 3INHA. J.
Heard.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 06.08.08 passed in Revision No. 98/08 by the State Transport Appeliate Tribunal (STAT), Raipur, the petitioner has tiled this writ petition. By the impugned order, the presiding off}ier ofSTAT has allowed the application filed for condonatron of delay in filing the Revrsion and has directed for listing the Revision for final hearing. it appears that State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh passed an order dated 04.04.08 and granted permit to the petitioner on the relevant route. The said order dated 04.04.08 was challenged in Revision Petition No. 98/08 by respondent No. 2. Along with the Revision Petition, the respondent No.2 filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the Revision. Specific pleadingsWere made explaining the delay in fiiing the Revision.
2
7/2?
WRIT PETITION (227)N0.7204OF2010
Notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, by the impugned order, the STAT condonedthedeiay in filing the Revision and directed that the matter belistedforfinaihearing. i have gone through the contentsoftheimpugnedorder._fam satisfied that the deiay occurred in filing the Revision was properly explained and there is no illegalityandinfirmityintheimpugnedorder passedbytheSTATwhere-bythedelayinfilingtheRevisionhasbeen condoned.
For the foregoing reasons, i do not find any substanceinthewrit petition.The petitionisliabletobedismissedandisherebydismissed summarily.
Sd/SunilKumarSinha Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the impugned order of condonation of delay by STAT has any merit.
Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur
State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh
Kanker Roadways
Sunil Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
