1 2025:CGHC:17302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2548 of 2023 1 - Amit Kumar Pasayat S/o Samaru Kumar Pasayat Aged About 38 Years R/o J.M. Colony, Budhraja Sambalpur, District Sambalpur (Odisha) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Secretary Of State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Secretary Of State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Secretary Of State Transport Authority Odisha Katak (Odisha) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State :- Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.04.2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.17 10:49:00 +0530 2 1. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 3 whereby the permission for counter signature of permanent permit No. 34-G/2022 from Sambalpur to Raipur has been denied. Hence this petition. 2. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to allow this writ petition and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 15.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 08.05.2023 (Annexure R/1) passed by respondent no. 04 which is passed in violation of principal of natural justice. 10.2 That, if the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper call the records pertaining to petitioner's case. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which may be deed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner. ” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inter-state permit from Orissa to Chhattisgarh has not been countersigned by the State of Chhattisgarh though the State of Orissa has signed the permit. The State of Chhattisgarh has declined to countersign the permit on the ground that the bus which is required to be ply in the inter-state road is above 10 years old and, as such, permit cannot be granted. He submits that now the petitioner has purchased a new bus which is fit for plying in the inter-state road, 3 as such, this petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 STA/RTA to reconsider his application on the ground that he is having a new bus which is fit in all aspect for plying in the inter-state road. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the said submission and submits that there is violation of some conditions of the reciprocal agreement and the bus, for which the petitioner has applied for permit, is 10 years’ old one, as such, the permit has not been given. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be allowed to file an appropriate application along with showing the condition of new bus including the Registration Number, Fitness etc. to the State Authorities and the State Authorities i.e. STA/RTA, in turn, be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of inter-state permit and to countersign the permit so that he may be able to ply the bus, if their application is found appropriate in accordance with law and Rules. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material evidence available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the parties and particularly the fact that now the petitioner is having a new bus which is is fit for plying in the inter- state road, the concerned competent authority i.e. STA/RTA is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner as it was 4 rejected only on the ground that the bus, for which the earlier permit was sought for, was 10 years’ old one. The authority shall consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law, fssssor grant of countersign of the inter-state permit while taking note of the fact that the petitioner is ready to ply a new bus which is fit in every condition. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on merits of the case. 9. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha