1 2025:CGHC:60490-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 926 of 2025 Abhijit Singh Suri S/o Shri Santokh Singh Aged About 30 Years Bus Operator, R/o Chhui Khadan, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh (Respondent No. 3) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ghadi Chowk, Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Jasvinder Singh Bal S/o Narinder Singh Bal Aged About 49 Years Bus Operator, R/o Mahendra Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.13 11:10:12 +0530 2 12.12.2025 1. The appellant (respondent No.3 in writ petition) has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 10/10/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 5321/2025 (Jasvinder Singh Bal v State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent No.4 herein (writ petitioner). For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their before the learned Writ Court. 2. In the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended 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. It was contended that being aggrieved with the said order dated 12/06/2023, respondent No.3 (appellant herein) 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. It was further contended 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. 3. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by 3 the order impugned. Relevant paragraphs 7 to 9 of the writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- xxx 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. 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.” 4 4. Learned counsel for the appellant herein (respondent No.3) would submit that he has a locus to file a revision against the order passed by the respondent/RTA, because appellant was plying his vehicle on same route. Though the permit granted on 14.08.2012 to the appellant was expired on 13.08.2022 but on the date 12.06.2023 when the impugned order passed in favor of the respondent no. 4 by granting permit, appellant's application for renewal of permit was pending before the respondent No. 3 herein and the same was allowed by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 01.03.2024 for the period from 14.08.2022 to 13.08.2027. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had submitted his objection before the respondent No. 3, raising various irregularities in the application of respondent No. 4, specifically there is time clashes between the time table of appellant and the proposed time table of respondent No. 4. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the order passed in the writ petition be set aside or quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. He submits that the learned Single Judge has observed that the appellant herein 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. It was also observed that the writ petitioner has raised his objection to the locus of appellant herein before the Revisional Court, but without 5 considering the said objection with respect to the locus of appellant, the STAT proceeded in the matter and allowed the revision filed by appellant, which is bad in the eyes of law. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 7. From bare perusal of the material available on record, it is crystal clear that in fact, the appellant herein was not applicant to the route for which, the writ petitioner had applied for the said permit. It is also manifest that the appellant herein is not having any permit on the same route and as such, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that he has no locus to challenge the permit granted in favour of the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly passed the order impugned. The same is just and proper warranting no intereference of this Court. The appellant herein failed to establish the case by producing cogent material in his support. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 herein, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra- Court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In 6 the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Amardeep/Sourabh