Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19320 (CHH)

MANISH TRAVELS v. SAIYED ANWAR ALI

WPC/1798/2020 · 2025-06-22

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:26806 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1530 of 2020 Payal Travels Through The Partner Shri Piyush Deshlehra, S/o Prakash Deshlehra R/o G. E. Road Durg Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Saiyed Anwar Ali S/o Saiyed Ahemad Ali C/o Royal Travels, Near Bus Stand Pandri Raipu, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority Bastar Division Basta, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 3 - Statetransport Appellate Tribunal Old Dks Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1798 of 2020 Manish Travels Through The Proprietor Shri Manish Jain, Aged About 49 Years R/o G.E. Road, Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Saiyed Anwar Ali S/o Saiyed Ahemad Ali C/o Royal Travels, Near Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 3 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Old D K S Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For Respondent No.1 For State : : Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.06.2025 1) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.02.2020, passed by respondent No. 3 in Revision Nos. 12/2019 & 13/2019, respectively. 2) Mr. Johri, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 1, who was the owner of the buses bearing registration Nos. CG-04-E-2543 and CG-04-E-3522, had leased out both buses to the petitioners on 12.03.2016 for a period of one year. He further submitted that the lease was extended for another year. However, during the lease period, respondent No. 1 applied for permit before the Regional Transport Authority for both vehicles. These permits were granted in favour of respondent No. 1 on 10.10.2017. 3) It is contended that respondent No. 1 had concealed the fact that the vehicles were already leased to the petitioners and obtained the permits fraudulently, even though the vehicles were already covered under another permit. Revisions were preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, STAT), but both were dismissed. He would further submit that respondent No. 1 committed fraud with the Court; thus, he would pray that order dated 10.10.2017 along with the subsequent orders passed in revision may be quashed 3 and direction may be issued to take appropriate action against respondent No. 1. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, submitted that respondent No. 1 was the owner of the vehicles bearing registration Nos. CG-04-E-2543 and CG-04-E- 3522. He admitted that both vehicles were leased to the petitioners, and respondent No. 1 had applied for permits before the Regional Transport Authority, which were duly granted. However, he pointed out that the lease period expired in the year 2018 and the writ petitions were filed in 2020. Since the vehicles are no longer in the possession of the petitioners, they have no locus standi to challenge the grant of permits or subsequent orders. 5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6) It is not in dispute that the vehicles were leased by respondent No. 1 to the petitioners in the year 2016, and the lease period expired in the year 2018. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 concealed the existence of the lease while applying for permits. 7) Taking into consideration the fact that the lease period has already expired in 2018 and the writ petitions were filed in 2020, therefore, in my opinion no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8) Consequently, both writ petitions are dismissed at the admission stage itself. However, the petitioners would be be at liberty to take recourse to law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim