1 2025:CGHC:2139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 189 of 2025 Haresh Sahu S/o Bechuram Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o H. No. 4269, Ward No.8, Ama Seoni, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner Transport Department 3rd Floor Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. District Transport Officer Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Amit Kumar Sharma and Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 14/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. CG-07-CE-8412, is questioning the remarks made in the online portal of the 2 respondent No.3/ District Transport Officer, Durg whereby it has been mentioned against the vehicle of the petitioner that due to some complaint and audit inquiry, the petitioner’s vehicle has been blacklisted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that neither any notice has been issued to him nor any opportunity was provided to submit any explanation to the same before proceeding to lock (black-list) the vehicle of the petitioner. He further submits that the blacklisting of the petitioner’s vehicle is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that though it has been mentioned in the portal that the petitioner’s vehicle has been blacklisted but it does not reflect that any show cause notice has been given to him or any reply sought from the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From perusal of the document (Annexure P/2), it is clear that the vehicle has been declared as blacklisted vehicle but it does not reflect that before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle, any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 6. As no opportunity of hearing was provided the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle, the respondent authorities are 3 directed to take necessary steps to delete the word “locked/ black- listed” from the portal against the petitioner’s vehicle. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if so desired. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar