Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-7-2002 (Annexure P-1 ). The aforesaid order has been passed in a revision pending before the respondent No. 1 Tribunal in Revision No. 661/2001. ( 2. ) THE order is passed staying the operation of the petitioners vehicle and the revision is pending adjudication on merit before the Tribunal. It is the case of that he was granted permit No. 286/sta/96 on route Bhander to Salethara via Bichhodama, Chirgaon, Simthari in the year 1996 valid upto 31-5-2001. Thereafter permit was renewed vide order dated 7-6-2001 (Annexure P-3) for the period 26-5-2001 to 25-5-2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of renewal respondent No. 3 has filed the said Revision No. 661/2001 which is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. On an application for stay being moved by respondent No. 3, the Tribunal vide order dated 19-3-2002 directed for survey of the route and called for report however once survey was conducted the petitioner submitted objection and contended that the report of survey has been filed without giving opportunity to the petitioner. The said report is Annexure P-8, dated 23-5-2002. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running the vehicle in the route for last more than 6 months. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat has given a certificate that except for rainy season when there is flooding in the river. In spite of this by considering aforesaid report stay has been granted and the case has been posted for further hearing on 28-1-2003. It is the case of the petitioner that as he was operating on the route and as valid permit has been granted to him, staying the same based on a survey report which was prepared behind his back and on which no relevance can be placed impugned order has been granted which cannot be sustained. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed the return and it is averred in the return that the permit has been granted to the petitioner contrary to the provisions of law, the route is not motorable and the petitioner is not operating the vehicle on full route in question. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 3 has filed the return and it is averred in the return that the permit has been granted to the petitioner contrary to the provisions of law, the route is not motorable and the petitioner is not operating the vehicle on full route in question. In fact the petitioner is operating only on a portion of a route, i. e. , between Chirgaon and Bhander and because of this the petitioner was fined also, there is no bridge or rapta in a portion of the route because of which vehicle cannot run on the full route granted by the permit. Apart from this respondent No. 3 placed reliance on Annexure R-(3)/1, R- (3)/2 and R-3, letters issued by the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Datia to the Executive Engineer, Jhansi Division to demonstrate that the route is not motorable. ( 4. ) THAT apart it is submitted that the said respondent objected to grant of permit from time to time. The contention that the petitioner was not permitted to participate in the survey or survey is done behind his back is also denied and inviting attention to survey report (Annexure P-8 ). It is submitted that report indicates that Shri Amrit Singh Yadav, son of Shri Durga Prasad Yadav was present at the time of survey. It is averred that a false affidavit was filed saying that petitioner was not present at the time of survey. ( 5. ) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. ( 6. ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner against an interlocutory order of stay granted by the Appellate Tribunal in a pending revision. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal does not have any power of granting stay nor is their case that the Tribunal has committed error of jurisdiction in granting stay. On the contrary it is their case that the Tribunal without considering the fact that the vehicle in question is running on the route for more than 6 years and placing reliance on a survey report which is not acceptable and which cannot be looked into have passed the order to stay. ( 7. On the contrary it is their case that the Tribunal without considering the fact that the vehicle in question is running on the route for more than 6 years and placing reliance on a survey report which is not acceptable and which cannot be looked into have passed the order to stay. ( 7. ) A perusal of the order indicates that even if the petitioners contention that he was not present at the time of survey is taken note of the fact remains that the survey report is submitted by an official of the Government and there is nothing to indicate that the same cannot be looked into. The survey report (Annexure P-8) indicates that 2 Kms. of the route is not motorable. It is a route on which bullock-carts move and the bus which was taken at the time of survey passed through this portion of the route with so difficulty and there is no bridge or rapta in the river which is part of the route. According to the report during rainy season or for about 9 months the route not at all motorabte. That apart the reports filed as Annexure R-3 (2) and R-3 (3) by the petitioner prima facie supports the view given in the report. Considering the reports and the public safety involved in the matter the Tribunal has passed the impugned order of stay. The Tribunal on prima facie examination of the case based on the survey report has come to the conclusion that the renewal of the permit granted vide order dated 7-6-2001 is unsustainable because entire route is not motorable and as there is not bridge in the river dangerous situation can arise. It is, on this consideration that impugned order of stay was granted. ( 8. ) AS the Tribunal has considered the material on record and taking in view the safety aspect of the matter has passed the impugned order of stay it cannot be said that the Tribunal has acted in a manner which in unreasonable or perverse. The order of the Tribunal indicates application of mind for the purpose of assessing the prima facie case and assessment has been made in a proper manner. The contention of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of survey is prima facie incorrect as the report indicates that he was present. The order of the Tribunal indicates application of mind for the purpose of assessing the prima facie case and assessment has been made in a proper manner. The contention of the petitioner that he was not present at the time of survey is prima facie incorrect as the report indicates that he was present. Even otherwise at this stage the report is to be accepted as it is and the question of the report being prepared in the absence of the petitioner is a matter of the enquiry which will be decided by the Tribunal at the time of final adjudication of the revision. At this stage the report was accepted and as indicated hereinabove taking into consideration the safety aspect of the matter involved and in all probability the interest of the public the order of stay has been granted. While considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the present petition is against the interlocutory order and this Court exercises very limited jurisdiction in such matters. A finding arrived at this stage on the basis o!: material on record which appears to be just and reasonable should not be interferred with in exercise of this limited jurisdiction by this Court. Merely because the petitioner is plying the vehicle on the route for more than 6 years and only because he was not present at the time of survey it cannot be said that the route is motorable and no safety aspect is involved in the matter. Reports submitted by authorities have to take note of until and unless there are material to indicate that the same are arbitrary or obtained by fraud or mis-representation or issued malafidefy. Prima facie no such material is available on the record in the present case and that is why the Tribunal in para 4 of its order has considered the report and accepted it for the purpose of prima facie assessment of the case. In the opinion of this Court in doing so it cannot be said that the Tribunal has acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of law or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. ( 9. In the opinion of this Court in doing so it cannot be said that the Tribunal has acted in a manner contrary to the provisions of law or has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. ( 9. ) CONSIDERING the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the material on record and approach of the Tribunal it cannot be said that grounds have been made out by the petitioner warranting interference by this Court at this stage. That being I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal in exercise of the writ jurisdiction at this stage. However, these seems to be some substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner that after having stayed the next date given in January, 2003 was not at all justified, the Tribunal in the circumstances should have made endeavour to hear and dispose of appeal at an earlier date. In view of the above even though I am not inclined to interfere in the order of the stay granted by the Tribunal but while dismissing the petition it is observed that the Tribunal on an application for early hearing being filed by the petitioner shall consider the same and make all endeavour to dispose of the revision on merits at an earlier date. The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.