1 2025:CGHC:47476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4938 of 2025 1 - Narendra Bain S/o Mr. Nitai Bain Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 44, Medharmar, Tehsil- Raigarh, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Regional Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 16/09/2025 The instant writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.089.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, Regional Transport 2 Authority whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking grant of a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit for the bus bearing registration No. 13 BC 9882 on the route Raigarh to Kasabel via Gharghe, Dharampjaigarh, Pathalgaon, was rejected. 2. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice as no notice of rejection or opportunity of hearing was provided before passing the order, contrary to the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the impugned order and a remand for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard before rejection of the application. It was contended that Sub-section (2)of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly mandates that if an application is refused, written reasons and an opportunity hearing must be provided. The respondent authority failed to comply with this mandatory requirement. He further argued that the order was passed 16 days after submission without informing the petitioner or providing any procedural opportunity rendering the order arbitrary and unsustainable. It is therefore submitted that the order impugned may be set aside and direct the respondent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s application in accordance with the statutory provisions, and ensure that the decision 3 s taken after providing proper notice and hearing within a stipulated time frame. 4. Counsel for the respondent/State submits that the applicant was processed in accordance with internal departmental procedures and the agenda for the meeting was publicly notified on the departmental website on 06.08.2025, providing public notice to all stakeholders. It is argued that the regional transport authority has discretionary power to accept or reject applications and the order impugned was passed within reasonable time considering administrative constraints. She contended that the petitioner had an opportunity to raise objections during the meeting scheduled on 13.08.2025 and the authority considered all submissions before passing the order. It was submitted that the impugned order is legal, valid and in accordance with law and therefore no interference is warranted. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 rejecting the application for grant of a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided and the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were not complied with. 6. On perusal of the record and submissions made, it appears that the respondent authorities have not undertaken the necessary exercise while passing the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure-P/1). A plaint perusal of the impugned order does not reflect compliance with 4 the requirements of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 71 nor does it indicate that the statutory requirements of Sub-section (2) of Section 80 were adhered to during the process of passing the said order. 7. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. The matter is accordingly remitted back to the Regional Transport Authority giving a direction to provide the petitioner an opportunity of hearing following the refusal of his application for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit, in accordance with the requirements of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 80, while also keeping in view the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 71. 8. In view of the foregoing observations and directions and having regard to the fact that this Court has already decided a similar matter in WPC No. 4507 of 2025, the instant petition is also allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including any objectors who participated in the proceedings at the first instance. Thereafter, the authorities shall pass a reasoned order on the application within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly the present petition is allowed in line with the observations in WPC No. 4507 of 2025. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.19 11:46:46 +0530