1 2025:CGHC:16978 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3253 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hridayanand Tiwari S/o Nageshwar Tiwari, R/o Namnakala, Ring Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 2 - Mohammad Shahabuddin Bus Operator, Popular Bus Service, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Asfaq Kamar Bus Operator, Popular Bus Service, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Mithlesh Tiwari R/o Namnakala, Ring Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate For Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.04.23 12:41:39 +0530 2 11/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Satish Gupta, learned Government Advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent/s. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 17.05.2022 passed by the STAT, Raipur in Appeal case No. A 97/2021 the instant writ petition has been filed. The said 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 15 A 9652 stood rejected on 17.05.2022. 3. 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 17.05.2022. 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 4. 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. For some reasons, the respondent No.1 could not get connected and for the reason that there was no representation in the given circumstances, the Transport Authority reached to the conclusion that respondent No.1 the applicant perhaps was not interested in getting his permit. This conclusion drawn by the Transport Authority under the said circumstances is totally unwarranted. The STAT decided the appeal on 17.05.2022 i.e. after about One year and three 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 2 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. 5. 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. 6. All that the learned STAT indicated was that respondent No.1 the applicant should be heard afresh and he should also be permitted 4 to complete whatever formalities if at all if there is any which has been left out and if required in a given case also permit the applicant to reschedule the timing in the event there is a time clash. 7. 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. 8. Given the said facts, this Court does not find any merits on the writ petition. The said writ petition accordingly stands rejected. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi