1 / 3 2025:CGHC:5146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 577 of 2025 1 - Jay Prakash Goyal S/o Shri Kapoor Chand Goyal Aged About 70 Years R/o W No. 14, Baradwar Road, Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Transport Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Commissioner, Transport Department, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Transport Officer, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi and Mr. Vikram Kumar Sharma, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is a registered owner of a vehicle bearing Registration No. CG13/LA/5363, is 2 / 3 questioning the remarks made in the online portal of the respondent No.3/ District Transport Officer, Raigarh whereby it has been mentioned against the vehicle of the petitioner that due to some complaint and audit enquiry, the petitioner’s vehicle has been blacklisted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that before mentioning in the portal by blacklisting the vehicle of the petitioner, neither any notice has been issued to him nor any opportunity was provided to submit any explanation to the same. He further submits that the blacklisting of the petitioner’s vehicle is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that though it has been mentioned in the portal that the petitioner’s vehicle has been blacklisted but it does not reflect that any show cause notice has been given to him or any reply sought from the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. From perusal of the document (Annexure P/2), it is clear that the vehicle has been declared as blacklisted vehicle but it does not reflect that before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle, any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 6. As there is no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before blacklisting the petitioner’s vehicle, the 3 / 3 respondents authorities are at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so desired. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar