Judgment : On the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by the 2nd respondent, who obtained a transfer of the petitioner's permit No.7/68, by order dated 17-6-1999 and the subsequent transfer of the permit to the 3rd respondent by order dated 31-1-2001, when questioned by the petitioner invoking the revision jurisdiction of the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (KSTAT), were numbered as R.P.Nos. 107 and 108 of 2001. In addition, the petitioner filed a complaint petition before the jurisdictional Additional Civil Metropolitan Magistrate Court, whence, after an enquiry the investigating authority filed a B-report leading to dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by order dated 12-3-2004. The petitioner additionally is said to have instituted a suit for declaration said to be pending before the City Civil Court. 2. In the backdrop of these facts, the KSTAT recorded a finding that there was no material to establish either fraud or misrepresentation since the petitioner's admitted signature was found on Form No.52 for transfer of permit and that the allegation that the petitioner did not engage B.G. Raghuram, Advocate, was disbelieved and as a consequence, having concluded that there was no merit in the revision petitions rejected the same, reserving liberty to the petitioner to secure the relief at the hands of the City Civil Court. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and examined the order impugned, I find no legal infirmity calling for interference. The writ petitions are without merit and are, accordingly rejected.