1 2025:CGHC:47698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4956 of 2025 1 - Santosh Shukla S/o Dayaram Shukla Aged About 47 Years Bus Operator, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Ramtala, Koni Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Transport Department, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Regional Transport Authority Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order dated 29.08.2025 passed by the respondent nO. 2 (Annexure P/1) being illegal, arbitrary and against the settled principles of law. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass similar order as per Annexure P/2 as the case of the petitioner is similar to the above case in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.18 17:43:04 +0530 2 challenging the order dated 29.08.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent no. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 72 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 for grant of Permanent State Carriage. It is respectfully submitted that, petitioner had filed application for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage on the route from Mungeli to Korba via Ratanpur, Kota, Lormi and one trip back of his Bus bearing No. CG10BU6502 after depositing Rs. 2500/- fees. It is respectfully submitted that , respondent no. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 29.08.2025 without complying the mandatory provision under sub-section 2 of Section 80 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 which is in violation of principle of natural justice. 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. 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 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. 6. From plain perusal of the second proviso of sub-section 2 of 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. 7. This exercise perhaps has not been undertaken by the respondent Authorities while passing the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 29.08.2025. The plain perusal of the impugned order also does not reflect that the requirement of the proviso to the sub-section 2 of Section 71 has also a requirement of the proviso under sub-section 2 of 3 the Section 80 having been complied with or adhered to in the process of passing of the impugned order Annexure P/1. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order to the 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 Permanent Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the requirement under Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 80 and also keeping in view the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 71. 9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, 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 from the date of receiving of this order. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti