( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for both sides.

( 2 ) THE order dated 19th April, 2000 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (the 'kstat' in short) passed allowing the revision in R. P. No. 845 of 1990 is sought to be quashed by the petitioner herein.

( 3 ) THE admitted facts are as stated under. The stage carriage permit granted to one D. Sheshuraja Reddy by respondent 2-KSTA under its resolution dated 26th, 27th and 28th of july, 1990 vide Annexure-A was challenged by respondent 3 herein N. R. Revanna, in revision before the KSTAT. That revision was filed before it on 27-10-1990 and it was beyond the limitation period of thirty days provided by 2nd proviso to Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'act' in short ). Therefore, an application under that proviso was filed by respondent 3, who was petitioner before the KSTAT praying to condone the delay that was caused by him in filing of the said revision. During the pendency of the said revision stage carriage permit was transferred by the grantee D. Sheshuraja Reddy to the petitioner herein. The said D. Sheshuraja Reddy was respondent 2 before the Tribunal. But, petitioner was not made a party therein. Therefore, the petitioner herein also, as a transferee of the said permit, made an impleadment application before the Tribunal praying for permission to come on record as a respondent in the revision.

( 4 ) CURIOUSLY, those two applications were not at all taken up for consideration by the KSTAT and disposed of before the revision petition was heard by it. Without deciding first those applications, the Presiding Officer of the KSTAT has straightaway proceeded to dispose of the main revision petition itself by its impugned order. This approach adapted by him was highly unwarranted and uncalled for. Its order is patently an illegal order as the Tribunal had no power to entertain the revision, which was obviously barred by time, and without condoning the delay first by passing an appropriate order on the said application filed for its condonation.

( 5 ) THEREFORE as fairly conceded by learned Counsel for respondents, the order under revision cannot be sustained in law.

( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this order, I am constrained to record the Court's strong reprobation and pleasure on the inordinately long delay of 10 years which had been taken by the Tribunal for disposal of the said R. P. No. 845 of 1990. It is a highly disturbing feature which glares at one's face. It was submitted at the Bar that such delays in disposal of the pending matters by the KSTAT normally happen on account of the utterly indifferent and callous attitude on the part of the Secretaries of the concerned Regional Transport Authorities (RTAs) and of the Karnataka state Transport Authority (KSTA) who, for the reasons best known to them, generally remain oblivious and unmindful of their legal duty to forthwith despatch the record of the concerned proceeding of their office to the KSTAT within the statutory period of 14 days of the receipt of intimation from it (KSTAT ). In this regard, relevant provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 90 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles rules, 1989 (the Rules of 1989' for short) need be adverted to. They are:"90. Procedure in appeal or revision. (1) After the State transport Appellate Tribunal has admitted an appeal under Section 90, it shall appoint time and place for the hearing of the appeal or revision application, as the case may be, give an intimation to the authority against whose order the appeal or revision application is made and also to the appellate or applicant concerned and any other person likely to be effected by the grant of the relief prayed for, such appellant, respondent or the person interested shall appear before the Tribunal in person or through an authorised representative with original documents or records pertaining to the case on the appointed date and place of the hearing, if any. (2) The secret