1 2025:CGHC:21485 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2302 of 2025 1 - J.S. Sawhney S/o Late Shri H.S. Sawhney Aged About 54 Years R/o Virdi Colony, Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Radhakrishna Gupta S/o Late Shri Shankar Dayal Prasad R/o New Durga Bus Service, Purana Bus Stand, Ambikapur, Dist. - Sarguja (C.G.) 3 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, Dist. - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sudeep Johri and Shri J.K. Gupta, Advocates For Respondents No.1 & 3 : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anshul Ranjan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/05/2025 1. The petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.19 18:53:46 +0530 2 dated 18.3.2025 passed in Revision No.45 of 2024 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the STAT’) by which the STAT has set aside the order dated 9.7.2024 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. In the appellate order, the petitioner has sought following reliefs: “1- That the Hon’ble court may kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 2- That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to quash the impugned order Annexure P-1 in the interest of justice. 3- That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to pass any other order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. The case, as projected by the petitioner, is that he has applied for a permanent permit before respondent No.1 for the route Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) to Nagarnar (Chhattisgarh) via Ambikapur, Bilaspur, Raipur, Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon, Jagdalpur for one single trip covering more than 765 Kms. In a single stretch. As per Section 71 read with Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, respondent No.1 is the authority to decide and grant permit. Accordingly, after calling objections from the concerned parties and after giving due opportunity of hearing, the application for grant of permit was allowed vide order dated 9.7.2024 by permit bearing No.384/RTA/B/2024. Against the grant of permit to the petitioner, respondent No.2 has filed a revision before the STAT. The STAT has palpably 3 allowed the revision while setting aside a well reasoned order passed by the Regional Transport Authority while holding that the relevant documents in respect of grant of permit has been filed after hearing of the case on 1.3.2024, as such the grant of permit to the petitioner is not in accordance with law as the petitioner has not filled up paragraphs 10, 12 and 15 of the application and as such incomplete application cannot be considered by the Regional Transport Authority and no permit can be granted on the basis of incomplete application. Relying upon the order passed in WPC No.579 of 2018 and WPC No.812 of 2018, this Court has held that since the concerned owner does not fulfill the statutory requirement for grant of permit, as such permit cannot be granted. The documents were also not filed as per Rule 72(3) of the Motor Vehicles Rules which is also in violation of the rules as such the permit cannot be granted. Likewise, in the judgment passed in the matter of Shailesh Vijayvargiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others in WP No.7081 of 2014 on 9.10.2014 the Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held that when the statutory prescribed form is left blank and not filled up then on this ground alone the application is required to be rejected. As such, there is violation of Rule 72(3) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Considering the aforesaid aspect and also considering the judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ajantha Transports (P) Ltd. Coimbatore v. M/s T.V.K. Transports, Pulampatti, AIR 1975 SC 123, G. Veerappa Pillai, Proprietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, 4 Porayar, Tanjore District, Madras v. Raman and Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore, District and others, AIR 1952 SC 192 and K. Balasubramania Chetty v. N.M. Sambandamoorthy Chetty, AIR 1975 SC 818, in absence of fulfilling the requisite criteria the permit cannot be granted to the petitioner and as such it has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the STAT has illegally allowed the revision while setting aside the order of the STAT. The STAT has rightly passed the order granting permit to the petitioner. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since respondent No.2 is not an operator to the said route, as such the revision filed by respondent No.2 was not at all maintainable and it was liable to be dismissed on the ground of locus of respondent No.2 to file revision. The objection as raised by respondent No.2 is also not maintainable as respondent No.2 is operating his vehicle between Raipur to Bailadila via Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon, Jagdalpur, Geedam, Dantewada, Bacheli, which is only a part of common route of 439 Kms. The petitioner is seeking permit from Ramanujganj which is more than 300 Kms. away from Raipur. Therefore, there would be no clashing of time between these two operators. In light of settled proposition of law of the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the matter of Vijayan v. Sobhana and others, reported in AIR 2007 Kerala 177 the objection as raised by respondent No.2 is not at all maintainable. The STAT has committed illegality while 5 setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority has considered each and every aspect of the matter while comparing the time table in a chart, however, the same has not been considered by the STAT, as such the order impugned is liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have submitted that the STAT has rightly passed the order after considering the entire matter, as such the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care. 6. After perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, it seems that the Regional Transport Authority has considered every aspect of the matter including that of clashing in timing and while considering the objections raised by the four bus operators, it has passed the order. Since the operation of bus in any route is for the betterment of the transport facility to the commuters and passengers and further since the objections as raised by the bus operations have not been heard in the revision, the revision petitioner has not made all the objectors as party respondents, the Regional Transport Authority was also ex parte, as such considering the entire aspect of the matter and 6 especially considering the facility to be granted to the commuters and passengers of that route, further considering the fact that the operation of bus was sought to be from Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, which is a pre- dominantly resided by the Tribal people, as such operation of bus in that route would be beneficial for them. Hence, considering the entire aspect of the matter, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the STAT while setting aside the impugned order dated 18.3.2025 and while further directing the STAT to re-hear the matter while directing the revision petitioner to array all the objectors in the revision petition and to pass appropriate order while giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties including the objectors who have not been arrayed in the revision petition and to pass a fresh order in respect of grant of permit to the petitioner. This be done within a period of 60 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh