1 2025:CGHC:24873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2694 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhopendra Sahu S/o Anand Prakash Sahu R/o Nayapara, Ward No. 12, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - New Jeevan Bus Service New Bus Stand, Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rajesh Tiwari S/o Lalman Tiwari Bus Operator, Kailash Besan Mill, Gali No. 1, Fafadih, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Rajesh Dewangan S/o Shri Ramadin Dewangan Parmeshwari Travels, Near Jain Mandir, Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/06/2025 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 27.11.2021 passed by the STAT, Raipur in Appeal case No. A114/2021 the instant writ petition has been filed. The said 2 order of the STAT, Raipur was on an appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 whose application for grant of stage carriage permit for the passenger bus No. CG 25 F 3819 stood rejected on 08.02.2021. 2. On 27.11.2021, the STAT, Raipur after hearing the appeal of the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order allowing the appeal setting aside the order of rejection of grant of stage carriage permit dated 08.02.2021. The learned STAT further directed the respondent Authorities to ensure that the applicant be given a fair opportunity of hearing on the completion of formalities in terms of the requirements under Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and shall decide his application within a period of 30 days. It was further observed by the learned STAT that in the event if the authority finds that there is a clash of timing then if need arises the authorities may permit the respondent No.1 to move an appropriate amendment in the time schedule and if the same is found suitable, order should be passed by the State Transport Authorities. It is this order against which the petitioner-State has filed the writ petition. 3. Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case whatsoever has been made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned order. The proceedings were held in the online mode. After considering the case of the respondent No. 1, the Transport Authority has rejected the application preferred by the present respondent No.1. The STAT decided the appeal on 27.11.2021 i.e. after 8-9 months from the date the regional permit application for grant of permit was rejected by the Transport Authority. The instant writ petition itself has been filed after 6 months from the date of order passed by the STAT. No plausible explanation has been given by the State in not approaching the Court promptly particularly when the learned STAT had granted them only 30 days time for compliance. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.06.19 10:58:40 +0530 3 4. From the plain perusal of the observations made by the learned STAT it would clearly reflect that it is a most innocuous order that could not have been passed under the said circumstances and petitioners should not have any grievance in complying with the said order. 5. The learned STAT passed the order stating therein that respondent No.1 should be heard afresh and he should also be permitted to complete whatever formalities if at all if it has been left out and if required in a given case, permit him to reschedule the timing in the event there is a time clash. 6. This Court does not find any good ground available with the State to show that these observations by the learned STAT is impractical or the observations are those, which can not be complied with under any circumstance. It appears that the present writ petition has been filed only to avoid the contempt proceeding which could had been filed before the learned STAT. 7. Given the said facts, this Court does not find any merits on the writ petition. The said writ petition accordingly stands rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti