1 2025:CGHC:5915 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6267 of 2024 1 - Gulam Qadir Solanki S/o Late Gulam Hameed Solanki, Aged About 45 Years R/o Old Ganj Chowk, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Manish Travels Through Partner Manish Kumar Jain, Aged 55 Years S/o Balchand Jain, R/o Minimata Chowk, Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General For Resp. No.3. : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. By the present petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 26/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the STAT, Raipur in Revision Case No. R-83/2023, whereby the revision filed by RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.04 10:24:00 +0530 2 respondent No. 3 has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for grant of permit to operate Bus on the route from Balod to Rajnandgaon via Lohara, Devir has been allowed by the Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 06/10/2023, wherein respondent No.3 had raised objection to the said grant of permit, but the said objection was turned down by the RTA and finally the permission was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 06/10/2023, and subsequently vide Annexure-P/3, permit was issued to the petitioner for the period 06/10/2023 to 05/10/2028. He would submit that being aggrieved with the said order dated 06/10/2023, respondent No.3 preferred a revision before the STAT, though, the respondent No.3 was not having any locus to question the permit granted to the petitioner as neither respondent No.3 is co-applicant nor the route operator on the route for which the petitioner has been granted permit. He would next submit that respondent No.3, in fact, is a school bus operator having license of school bus only. Hence, the order entertaining the revision by the STAT is absolutely illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. Learned counsel for the State supported the order of the STAT and submits that the order has been passed by the Appellate Authority as quashi judicial authority and the same has been passed after considering the grievance of the parties. Learned 3 counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that respondent No.3 had raised objection before the RTA while permit was granted to the petitioner, but the said objection was rejected by the RTA without considering the objection in its true perspective. As the permit was granted in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has rightly approached the STAT and the Tribunal has rightly entertained the revision which is just and proper, and the order is legally sustainable. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the orders dated 26/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1) and 06/10/2023 (Annexure-P/2). 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 was neither the co- applicant to the route for which the permit was applied by the petitioner nor he was route operator of the same. 6. It is apparent that the petitioner has raised his objection to the locus of respondent No. 3 before the Revisional Court, but without considering the said objection with respect to the locus of respondent No.3, the STAT proceeded in the matter and allowed the revision filed by respondent No.3. 7. From perusal of the writ petition, it is quite vivid that the respondent No.3 was not an applicant to the route for which the petitioner had applied for permit. Even, he is not having any permit on the same route and he is only having a license and permit to operate school bus, hence, he has no locus to challenge the permit issued to the petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of 4 this Court, the learned STAT has committed gross illegality while entertaining the revision filed by the respondent No.3 who has no locus to challenge the permit issued to the petitioner for the route from Balod to Rajnandgaon via Lohara, Devir. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed. The order dated 06/10/2023 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the RTA while granting permit to the petitioner is maintained. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul