1 / 4 2025:CGHC:38754 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3294 of 2025 Raj Kishore Jaiswal S/o Late Shri R.S. Sahu Aged About 58 Years Bus Operator, R/o Rourkela Road, Rani Bagicha, Sundergarh Distt.- Sundergarh (Odisha) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Transport Authority Raipur Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Deputy Secretary State Transport Authority, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State Transport Authority Odisha, 6th Floor, Rajaswa Bhawan, Chandani Chowk, Cuttack-753002 5 - Ajay Sarathi Bus Operator, Bus Stand Janjgir Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6 - Anup Kumar Gupta Balaji Bus Service, Tapkara, Jashpur Distt.- Jashpur (C.G.) 7 - Mohd. Shahbuddin Bus Operator, Papular Bus Service, Near Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, Ditt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 8 - Minatullah Rahmani Bus Operator, Kharsia Naka, Ambikapur, Distt.- Sarguja (C.G.) 9 - Vivek Gupta Bus Operator Bus Stand Korba Distt.- Korba (C.G.) 10 - Ghanshaym Rathore Bus Operator, Bus Stant Janjgir Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03/03/2025 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.08.07 17:36:03 +0530 2 / 4 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is bus operator and is plying his vehicle on the strength of the permit granted by the State Authorities from time to time. The petitioner has applied for grant of Permanent Inter Stage Carriage Permit on the route Jharsuguda to Ambikapur via Sundergarh, Tapkera, Pathalgaon and back. The STA Odisha has granted the permit as per Permit No.32- R-2023 for the period of 5 years from 31/01/2024 to 30/01/2029. As the above permit requires for counter signature therefore an application for change of timing was submitted by the petitioner. After receiving application, the Respondent No.2 vide order dated 04/11/2024 deleted the stoppage of the petitioner which falls under the State of Chhattisgarh. Against the above order the petitioner has filed a revision before the STAT and the STAT by the impugned order dated 03/03/2025 not only dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner but also dismissed the order dated 04/11/2024 passed by the Respondent No.2. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the learned STAT has committed error by dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner and the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order passed by the STAT regarding deletion of stoppage, however, the STAT has dismissed the entire revision. He would next contend that the Respondent No.2 has further committed an error by deleting the stoppage of permit granted by the State of Odisha and no law provides for deletion of stoppage and the petitioner is held liable for the tax of the entire route. He would next contend that it is not 3 / 4 possible to travel from the State of Odisha to the State of Chhattisgarh without there being any stoppage and the same would also cause inconvenience to the public at large and also would create hurdle in picking up the passengers for a particular place. 4. Learned State counsel contended that the matter may be remitted back to the STAT to decide afresh. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the record it is crystal clear that against the order dated 04/11/2024 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner has filed a revision petition before the STAT against the portion of the order with regard to deletion of stoppage of the petitioner which falls under the State of Chhattisgarh and by the impugned order dated 03/03/2025, the Tribunal has not only dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner but also dismissed the order dated 04/11/2024. In view of the considered opinion of this court the STAT exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing the entire order of the State Transport Authority, Raipur and when the petitioner has only challenged the particular portion of the said order, the STAT should not have entered into the other aspects of the order which were not challenged before it. 7. Therefore, the order dated 03/03/2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the STAT for deciding the matter afresh i.e. Review 4 / 4 Case No.74/2024 in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu