1 2025:CGHC:45789 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4786 of 2025 1 - Rajendra Singh Chhabra S/o Santosh Singh Chhabra Aged About 50 Years R/o Jarhagarh Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ghadi Chowk, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 09/09/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is contended 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. He further submitted that the petitioner has applied for change of vehicle no. CG-15-EB-3051 (Model No. 2023) in place of CG-15-AB-5600 (Model No. 2016) affiliated to the Permanent Stage Carriage Permit no. 420/ABR/2013 for ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.11 19:08:38 +0530 2 the route Ambikapur to Wadrafnagar, which is valid upto 07.02.2028. He further submitted that the petitioner is also having one interstate stage carriage permit for the route Wadrafnagar to Baidan bearing permit no. CG/STA/64/2011 in which the above said vehicle no. CG-15-EB-3051 is already affiliated and therefore prayed that both the permits are to be affiliated by one vehicle. The respondent no.2 without assigning any reason or considering the law in this regard made an endorsement in the order dated 17.06.2025 as "Reject". That, being dissatisfied with the above rejected the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the STAT Raipur which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.07.2025 without considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court and passed an cryptic order which is not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, he has filed this petition claiming following relief: “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the authorities for its kind perusal and set- aside order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the STAT Raipur in appeal no. 23/2025 being illegal and against the law and consequently the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 17.06.2025 be set-aside. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to allow the application of the petitioner for replacement of vehicle as per Annexure P/2. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 3. I have perused the order passed by Respondent No. 2 on the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P/2) as well as the order of the RTA (Annexure P/3). It is noted that the RTA has merely recorded the word “Reject” without assigning any reason or citing any provision of law. The application of the petitioner has been rejected through a non-speaking order. Surprisingly, as per the order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P/1), the STAT, Raipur has affirmed the order of Respondent No. 2. The 3 order consists of a single word, i.e., “Reject,” which is wholly inadequate and unsatisfactory. Therefore, the orders passed by the concerned authorities are unsustainable in the eyes of law. Accordinlgy, the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by STAT, Raipur in appeal No. 23/2025 and order dated 17.06.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 are set aside and the matter remanded back to the concerned RTA to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, rules, and regulations, expeditiously and at the earliest. 4. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Alok