1 2025:CGHC:31206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3479 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Mata Bux Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Imalipara Gali No. 02, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur Sector 27, Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing Annexure P-1 dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh. Vide the impugned order, the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of State Carriage Permit has been rejected. 2. The challenge to the said order is primarily on the ground that the Authorities have not strictly adhered to the procedure as is otherwise required and laid down under Section 71 of the Motor Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.09 14:05:00 +0530 2 Vehicles Act, 1988 so also have not granted due and fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is required under Section 80 of the aforesaid Act of 1988. 3. From the plain perusal of the second proviso of Sub Section 2 of the Section 80, there is a requirement of the Authorities to first apply his mind in deciding the application under Section 72 and in the event, if authorities find that the application cannot be permitted or was inclined to be rejected, the same i.e. intention of the rejection of the same has to be communicated to the applicant concerned and an opportunity of hearing has to be given keeping in consonance Sub Section 2 of the Section 71 where the authorities can grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicant concerned for amending the time table if they so want. So that his application and objections can be considered in that regard. 4. This exercise perhaps has not been undertaken by the respondent Authorities while passing the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 11.11.2024. The plain perusal of the impugned order also does not reflect that the requirement of the proviso to the Sub Section 2 of the Section 71 has also a requirement of the proviso under Sub Section 2 of the Section 80 having been complied with or adhered to in the process of passing of the impugned order Annexure P-1. 5. Though from the plain perusal of the reading of impugned order, it appears that petitioner was permitted to participate in the virtual hearing while deciding the application but the mandatory requirement which is otherwise required as stipulated in the preceding paragraphs under Section 71 and Section 80 has not 3 been complied with. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order to that extent would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The impugned order and the issue is remitted back to the Regional Transport Authority so as to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner post refusal of his application for grant of Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the requirement under Proviso to Sub Section 2 of the Section 80 and also keeping in view the proviso to Sub Section 2 of the Section 71. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. Respondent Authorities are expected to take an appropriate decision afresh after hearing all the concerned parties to the proceedings including the objectors who had participated in the proceeding at the first instance and an order be passed within an outer limit of 60 days 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti