1 2025:CGHC:18378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1988 of 2025 Pratap Singh Korram S/o Chandra Kumar Korram Aged About 27 Years R/o H No. 101, Ward No. 7, Khadgaon District - Rajnandgoan (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Transport Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Transport Department 3rd Floor Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Transport Officer Durg District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents -State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Khulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.25 10:09:05 +0530 2 2. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and remove the locked (black listing) of the vehicle Vide registration no. CG 07 CH 1171 of the petitioner. ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioners. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioners, in the interest of justice.” 3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. CG07/CH/1171, is questioning the remarks made in the online portal of the respondent No.3/ District Transport Officer, Durg whereby it has been mentioned against the vehicle of the petitioner that due to some complaint and audit enquiry, the petitioner’s vehicle has been blacklisted. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before mentioning in the portal by blacklisting the vehicle of the petitioner, neither any notice has been issued to him nor any opportunity was provided to submit any explanation to the same. He further submits that the blacklisting of the petitioner’s vehicle is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that though it has been mentioned in the portal that the petitioner’s vehicle has been blacklisted but it does not reflect that any show cause notice has been given to him or any reply sought from the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. From perusal of the document (Annexure P/2), it is clear that the vehicle has been declared as blacklisted vehicle but it does not reflect that before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle, any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 8. As there is no opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps to delete the word blacklisting from the portal against the petitioner’s vehicle. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if so desired. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh