1 2025:CGHC:16769 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2009 of 2022 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh Department of Transport Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nava, Raipur (C.G.) (The Petitioner No. 1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner No. 1 In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - Smt. Meenu Mishra W/o Shri Anand Mishra R/o Pratapganj Ward, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.19 18:53:13 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/04/2025 1. The respondent Bus Owner/Transporter submitted an application for grant of permit before Regional Transport Authority (RTA) Bastar Region, Jagdalpur for route mentioned therein which falls within the jurisdiction of the RTA Bastar Division Jagdalpur. The application submitted by the respondent Bus Owner was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2019 with certain conditions. The Transporter, as per the condition mentioned in the permit made an application initially in the month of December 2020 for grant of permit pursuant to order passed by the RTA Jagdalpur on 19.12.2019 which was not considered and thereafter again the application has been submitted before the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for issuance of permit on 13.9.2021. When the RTA Raipur has not passed any order, the Transporter has approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) by way of filing appeal. The Appellate Tribunal issued notice to the respondent and upon hearing the respondent as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the RTA, Chhattisgarh/Department passed orders directing issuance of permit in favour of the appellant therein/respondent herein within a period of 7 days, also made certain observation against petitioners No. 2 & 3/State authorities and imposed cost of Rs.10,000/- . This order is put to challenge by the State in the instant writ petition. 3 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/State submits that the RTA, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, while allowing the application for grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) in its order dated 19.12.2019 has specifically mentioned pre- condition for further issuance of permit including the condition that it is the duty upon the bus owner/applicant to obtain the permit within a period of 30 days and to start plying the vehicle on route concerned. The Transporter has not made any attempt for obtaining permit pursuant to order passed by the RTA on 19.12.2019. The State Government vide notification dated 24.12.2019 has constituted Single Regional Transport Authority for Chhattisgarh State at Raipur, abolished all the Regional Transport Authorities in Division and Regions. The respondent for the first time made an application before the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 13.9.2021 which is after lapse of 30 days as prescribed in order dated 19.12.2019 for obtaining permit and to start plying of bus. By virtue of non-compliance of the condition mentioned in the order itself the order stood cancelled automatically after lapse of period of 30 days. Therefore, there was no question to grant permit pursuant to order dated 19.12.2019. Learned counsel also referred to Section 89 of the Act of 1988 and submitted that the respondent has preferred appeal referring the provision under Section 89 (f) of the Act of 1988, which is not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, the STAT erred in considering the appeal filed by respondent on merits. 4 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Transporter submits that under Rule 74 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short “Rules of 1994”), it is the mandatory duty upon the RTA to pass an order on the application for grant of stage carriage permit and further to communicate the same to the applicant/Transporter. The RTA, Jagdalpur at no point of time had intimated the fact of allowing the application of the respondent. Hence, submission of the petitioners that the order dated 19.12.2019 got automatically cancelled upon expiry of period of 30 days is not sustainable. The respondent from other sources got the knowledge of passing order on her application by the RTA, Jagdalpur and, thereafter, she has moved an application for obtaining the order dated 19.12.2019 so that she can obtain the permit to be issued by the RTA pursuant to order allowing the application under Section 72 of the Act of 1988. It is contended that the certified copy was supplied on 19th March 2020 and thereafter due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, there was nationwide lock- down. Transportation of the passenger carrying vehicles was also stopped, Govt. offices were closed. After normalization of situation, the Transporter went to office of the RTA Chhattisgarh at Raipur and submitted representation/application on 17.12.2020 which was not considered. The respondent who has to ply the vehicle under the supervision and the control of the State authorities waited for consideration of her representation and when nothing has been communicated to her, she has again submitted 5 application before the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur on 13.09.2021. Her application was again not disposed of either way by the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur. Aggrieved by the inaction of the RTA, the Transporter approached the STAT Raipur by way of filing appeal. The STAT, Raipur considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also hearing the counsel appearing for the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur, the affidavit submitted by petitioners No. 2 & 3/State authorities before the STAT who are the authorized persons for issuing permit, passed the impugned order. Before the STAT Raipur, State authorities have stated on affidavit that there is no hurdle or bar in issuance of permit in favour of the appellant therein/respondent herein. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, granted 7 days time to issue permit in favour of the respondent herein. The Transporter was suffering financial loss since December 2019, but, even after lapse of period of seven days till date, the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur has not issued permit arbitrarily. This shows their arbitrary act and intention not to issue permit in favour of the respondent. Learned counsel contended that the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur has issued permit in favour of other bus owners who have also made application before the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur pursuant to order passed by the RTA of Durg and Jagdalpur (before new notification), but, the application submitted by the respondent herein/bus owner has been kept at hold. Hence, the impugned order passed by the STAT, Raipur, Chhattisgarh does not call for any interference. 6 4. At this stage, learned State counsel submits that the application of the Transporter was under consideration before the competent authority for issuance of permit, but, within a period of 15 days of submission of the application, appeal has been filed by the respondent before the STAT and this fact was overlooked by the STAT that Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur is seized of the application submitted by the Transporter. Application was submitted only on 13.9.2021 whereas appeal was filed on 27.9.2021 i.e. within less than 15 days. Hence, the observations made by the STAT against the State authorities are not warranted in the facts of the instant case. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care. 6. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the State/petitioners with respect to non-compliance of the order passed by the RTA, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur and not making any attempt to obtain permit from the office within a period of 30 days is concerned, perusal of the record would show that the State/petitioners have not placed any document on record to show that the order passed by the RTA, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur is communicated at any point of time to the Transporter in terms of Rule 74 (3) of the Rules of 1994, before obtaining certified copy by her. Even there is no such pleading in the writ petition specifically mentioning the date on which 7 the bus owner was communicated the order, in compliance of the Rule 74 (3) of the Rules of 1994. Relevant portion of Rule 74 of the Rules, 1994 is extracted for ready reference: “74. Procedure on receipt of permit application and manner of disposal thereof- (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) Transport Authority shall after considering the application, as per provisions of law, pass an appropriate order thereon and communicate.” 7. From the aforementioned facts as is appearing from the record of the writ petition and requirement under Rule 74 (3) of the Rules of 1994, it is apparent that the RTA, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur has not discharged the obligation and duty as imposed upon it under Rule 74 (3) of the Rules of 1994 . Hence the said ground, in the opinion of this Court, is not available to the petitioners/State that the order passed by the STAT allowing the application under Section 72 of the Act of 1988 vide order dated 19.12.2019 got automatically cancelled after expiry of 30 days of the order. Period of 30 days will start from the date of knowledge of passing of the order. Hence, the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioners/State is repelled. 8 8. Submission of learned counsel for the respondent that she obtained certified copy after getting information from the other sources is appearing from the record of the appeal filed before the STAT. Along with the memo of appeal, the respondent has enclosed certified copy of the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by the RTA, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. The said copy of order was supplied by the office of the RTA, Jagdalpur only on 16.3.2020 on the application filed by respondent as stated by the counsel. From 25th March 2020, due to outbreak of Covid - 19 pandemic, there was nationwide lock-down and movement of buses and private vehicles were stopped for some time by virtue of order and direction issued by the Central Govt. and the State Govt. The Transporter has submitted representation/application before the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 17.12.2020 which is also filed along with memo of appeal before the STAT. It bears signature and receipt of the office of RTA with date. RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur has not rejected the representation till date nor have communicated to respondent. Undisputedly, the respondent again submitted application on 13.9.2021 which remained undecided. 9. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioners/State that the bus owner did not approach for obtaining permit within 30 days is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the application made by the litigants for extending the period of limitation, passed order time to time excluding the period of lockdown. Vide order 9 dated 10 January 2022, t h e Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 and other connected application including suo motu writ petition, excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for computing the period of limitation. In view of the aforementioned direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, there was no delay in filing of the application. 10. The other aspect of the instant case is that when the counsel for petitioners/State appeared before the STAT Raipur, ground that permit is not being issued in favour of the Transporter on account of expiry of period of 30 days, was not raised. Petitioners/State’s counsel before the STAT has not assigned any reason or ground for not issuing permit in favour the Transporter. Before this Court also, except submission that within 30 days of passing of order dated 19.12.2019, no attempt is made to obtain permit, no other ground is raised. Even the counsel on behalf of State or the officials of the State have not raised ground of automatic cancellation. In fact officials of the State before the STAT on affidavit stated that there is no hurdle in issuing permit. In the aforementioned facts of the case, first submission of learned counsel for the petitioners/State that the STAT erred in law in allowing the appeal and directing for issuance of permit within the period of seven days is not sustainable and it is hereby repelled. 10 11. In the facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the STAT considering the entire facts and circumstance of the case, purpose of obtaining the permit and considering the loss suffered by the respondent bus owner rightly issued direction to the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur to issue permit in favour of the Transporter, within specified period is not erroneous. 12. The second ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/State that the Appellate Tribunal erred in making observation adverse to the interest of the State officials is having some force. Perusal of the record of appeal shows that the respondent bus owner herein has filed application on 13.9.2021 before the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereas the appeal before the STAT was filed on 27.09.2021. In view of the aforementioned undisputed fact that the respondent has filed appeal within less than 15 days of the time of filing application before the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur, it cannot be said that the RTA or the other Authority i.e. petitioners No. 2 & 3 have kept the application pending for more than reasonable period and the action on their part to be arbitrarily in any manner. When once the application is submitted by the Transporter for issuance of permit pursuant to order passed by the RTA, it is to be processed and it may take some time. More so when after passing of order allowing application under Section 72 of the Act of 1988 by RTA, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, all Regional Transport Authorities were abolished and RTA at State level at Raipur was constituted vide notification dated 24.12.2019. 11 Considering aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the observations made by the STAT against petitioners No. 2 & 3 and so also imposition of cost upon the respondents of Rs.10,000/- was unwarranted. However, petitioners No. 2 & 3 shall be vigilant in deciding the applications expeditiously in future. 13. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the part of the impugned order of the STAT, Raipur in paragraphs 11 & 12 is hereby set aside. However, the other portion of the impugned order passed by the STAT from paragraphs 1 to 10 directing to grant permit is affirmed and shall remain intact. The RTA, Raipur, Chhattisgarh is directed to issue the permit in favour of the Transporter/respondent herein within further period of 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. 14. In view of the above, the instant writ petition filed by the State is allowed in part with the aforementioned observations and directions. 15. The Transporter/respondent is directed to appear before the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 9.6.2025. 16. Learned counsel for the State/petitioners is also directed to intimate about this order to petitioners No.2 and 3. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh