1 2025:CGHC:17270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4444 of 2021 1 - Sayyad Anwar Ali S/o Sayyad Ahmad Ali Aged About 53 Years C/o Royal Travels, Shop No. 03, Pagaria Complex, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Single Regional Transport Authority Third Floor, Commercial Complex, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Shrimati Varinder Kaur Bhatia Silky Travels, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Shrimati Harvinder Kaur Bhatia Silky Travels, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Shri Trilochan Singh Bhatia Silky Travels, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh 6 - Shri Vasan Singh New Bus Stand, Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 7 - Minntulla Rahumani New Shamim Transport, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Amit Jaiswal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the stage carriage vehicle and permit No.697/BSP/2018, was allotted by the RTO, Bastar in the year 2018. He would contend that the petitioner wanted to ply his vehicle in the region of other Regional Transport Officers therefore he moved an application before the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur for counter-sign according to provisions of Section 88 of the MV Act. The appeal preferred before the State Transport Authority by the petitioner was withdrawn pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.A. No.190 of 2021 dated 14.07.2021. Thus, he would pray to quash the order dated 1.7.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2/Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. A bare perusal of the order dated 1.7.2020 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, Chhattisgarh would show that the order is appealable before the State Transport Appellate Authority according to the provisions of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the order is appealable, in the opinion of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days along with an application for the grant of stay. The appellate authority is directed to decide the application for the grant of stay within a further period of 30 days. The interim order dated 8.11.2021 shall remain in force for a period of 60 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi