Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenger, the order of the Stale Transport Appellate Tribunal suspending the permit of the petitioner for one day with option to compound the offence. The vehicle belonging to the Corroration was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Trichi on 26-9-1988 near Kalaianngam theatre, and found the following irregularities— “(1) The vehicle was allowed totaly in one way traffic road, viz, Kalaiyarangam Rajali Hotel instead of viz. Junction; (2) Registration certificate, permit, driving licence, conductors licence were not available for check and (3) driver wanot wearing name badge on his person.” In this case, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, by the Regional Transport Authority under S. 60(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act and a reply was given by the petitioner. The petitioner replied stating that the registration certificate and permit were removed for some urgent vesication in the Office and it was also stated that on the date of check, there was diesel 1eakage in the vehicle and hence the crew took the vehicle to the shed with the passenjers to attend to the repairs. The Regional Transport Authority took a lenient view by suspending the permit for one day with option to compound the offence at Rs. 300 in lieu of suspension. On appeal, the State Transport Authority confirmed the order of the Regional Transpot Authority. 2. Mr. Jaichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, challenges the order of the Tribunal and states that because of the diescl leak, the crew took the vehicle through one way traffic instead of taking it through the junction. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that in almost all cases the State Transport Corporation is taking up the plea that the records were taken by the Office and it is not known for what purpose they were taken. The Tribunal has also found that admittedly the records are not available. With regard to the charge that the was was plying in one-way traffic road, the Tribunal held that such offences were committed again and again by the crew of the State Transport undertaking buses. In this case also, it is stated that there was diesel leak and therefore, the crew took the bus through one-way traffic road. At any rate, the charge has been admitted that the vehicle was taken through one way traffic road. In this case also, it is stated that there was diesel leak and therefore, the crew took the bus through one-way traffic road. At any rate, the charge has been admitted that the vehicle was taken through one way traffic road. With regard to the charge relating to the name badge, there is no proper explanation. When the Tribunal has given specific findings of fact, I do not think this Court can interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution. When charges are practically admitted, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 3. In my view, the Tribunal has taken the view that the Corporation is giving the excuse of diesal leakage in all cases. Eor example, in this case, the vehicle has been taken through one way traffic road, which is not permitted. When a Public Corporation which should be a model to others, especially to private operators has indulged in such violation of permit conditions, I do not see any reason to take a lenient view. The writ petition stands dismissed.