1 2025:CGHC:50574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5321 of 2025 Jasvinder Singh Bal S/o Narinder Singh Bal Aged About 49 Years Bus Operator, R/o Mahendra Nagar, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhijit Singh Suri S/o Shri Santokh Singh Aged About 30 Years Bus Operator, R/o Chhui Khadan, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ghadi Chowk Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, PL For Caveator : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA) ORDER ON BOARD 10/10/2025 1. By the present petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 17/09/2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the STAT, Raipur in Revision Case No. 61/2024, whereby the revision filed by respondent No. 3 has ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.10.16 14:44:02 +0530 2 been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route from Rajnandgaon to Kawardha via Railway Station, Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai, Lohara, with two return trip daily has been allowed by the Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 12/06/2023. He would submit that being aggrieved with the said order dated 12/06/2023, 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 further submit that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.6267 of 2024 {Gulam Qadir Solanki Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., decided on 31/01/2025} has allowed the petition in the similar circumstances, therefore, he would submit that the similar relief may be granted to the petitioner as 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 counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that the permit was granted in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.3 has rightly approached the STAT and the Tribunal has rightly 3 entertained the revision which is just and proper, and the order is legally sustainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 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, hence, he has no locus to challenge the permit issued to the petitioner. Further the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Gulam Qadir Solanki (supra) has granted the similar relief as prayed for the present petitioner. Therefore, in the opinion of 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 Rajnandgaon to Kawardha via Railway Station, Khairagarh, Chhuikhadan, Gandai, Lohara, with two return trip daily. 4 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17/09/2025 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed. The order dated 12/06/2023 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the RTA while granting permit to the petitioner is maintained. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (ARVIND KUMAR VERMA) JUDGE ASHU