1 CGHC010279842024 2026:CGHC:30373 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4278 of 2024 1 - Bhuwan Singh Thakur S/o Late Lallu Singh Thakur Aged About 75 Years Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Ward No. 20, Radhakrishna Ward, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Singh Thakur S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Thakur Aged About 35 Years Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Ward No. 20, Radhakrishna Ward, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisharh Through The Principal Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Regional Transport Authority Of Chhattisgarh Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Tarkeshwar Prasad Dewangan S/o Shri Mouji Ram Dewangan Occupation Bus Operator, R/o H.No. 137, Ward No. 5, Kharora, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Subodh Pandey, Advocate. For State : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/07/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure P/8) passed by the State Transport Appeallate Tribunal, Raipur C.G. (hereinafter ‘STAT’) to the extent of granting time slot to Respondent No.3 as proposed by him for his bus. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.2 owns a regular stage carriage AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 19:00:03 +0530 2 permit bearing No. SCP-146/RTA/D/2023 & 147/RTA/D/2023 on the route Kawardha to Raipur via Baimitra, Simga, Gharsiwa and back three single trip daily on rotation basis of both the permits. In fact the said permit was granted by respondent No.2 as a express bus service to the petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.1 owns a regular stage carriage permit bearing No. SCP-CG- 2024-SC-0173A on the route Kawardha to Raipur via Baimitra, Simga, Gharsiwa and back one return trip daily as ordinary bus service. Respondent No.3 filed application for grant of regular stage carriage permit on the route Kawardha to Raipur via Baimitra, Simga, Gharsiwa and back one return trip daily without accompanied documents prescribed under Rule 72(3) of M.V. Rules, 1994. Petitioner No.2 raised the objection against the application of the Respondent no.3 for grant of regular stage carriage permit and then application of the respondent No.3 has been rejected vide order dated 06.10.2023. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal bearing No. A 04/2024 before STAT(CG) assailing the order dated 06.10.2023. After receiving the knowledge for grant of permit to the petitioner no.1 by respondent No.2 on 10.06.2024, respondent no.3 filed an application on 11.06.2024 before the STAT(CG) in its appeal No. A 04/2024 and sought interim relief by way of restriction on respondent no.2 to not grant permit to the petitioner No.1. On the basis of the said application which is in a shape of stay application filed by respondent No.3, the learned STAT(CG) without proper application of mind and without impleading the party as respondent to the petitioner no.1 issued a notice in the said appeal to the petitioner No.1 on 12.06.2024. It is further submitted that after receiving the notice dated 12.06.2024, the petitioner No.1 appeared before the STAT(CG) through its 3 counsel and made a submission. After going to the factual and legal aspect, the STAT(CG) rejected the application dated 11.06.2024 of Respondent No.3 by which respondent No.3 sought an interim relief. STAT(CG) is well known that the proposed timing as proposed by respondent No.3 has already been granted by Respondent No.1 to the petitioner No.1 vide order dated 10.06.2024, therefore, the application dated 11.06.2024 is rejected by STAT(CG). But STAT(CG) created a great legal mistake that the appeal No. A 04/2024 was allowed and the case has been remitted back with specific direction that "The timing proposed by Respondent No.3 herein and the proposed permit be issued to respondent No.3 within 30 days”. This finding is against the law because the proposed timing has already been granted by respondent No.2 to the petitioner No.1 alongwith permit bearing No.CG 2024- SC-0173A. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the STAT is not in accordance with law to the extent that the STAT while passing the said order has granted permit and proposed time slot as sought by Respondent No.3 for which, the STAT is having no authority and as per the law, the STAT ought to have remanded the matter only for limited consideration as to whether the time slot which has been proposed by the bus operator/Respondent No.3 is required to be granted or not after entertaining objections of the other bus operators, which has not been done by the STAT while the passing the impugned order, as such, the order impugned so far as grant of time slot is concerned is erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is having no objection for grant of proposed permit in favour of Respondent No.3. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by this Court in WPC No.2235 of 2022 and other connected matter, wherein, the coordinate Bench has held that so far as time slot is concerned, the matter should be remanded to the RTA in order to give the proper time slot to the concerned bus operator in whose favour the permit has to be granted. He refers to paragraph 13 and 14 of the said order, which reads as under:- “13. So far as the submission of learned counsel for petitioners/State with respect to the nature of direction issued by the STAT is concerned, direction issued by STAT in paragraph No.18 in the order, is contrary to the provisions of law. The STAT while allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.1 in part had considered that the time table as submitted along with application under Section 72 by the respondent No.1 is not feasible and permitted to submit amended timings/time table. When the appellate authority while allowing the appeal concluded that the time cycle mentioned in application requires amendment then RTA has to comply with the provisions of the Rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act. There may be chances that on the oral proposed timings of the objector or applicant, some other existing bus operators of the route may have to say something and therefore, the direction issued by the STAT allowing the appeal and remitting back the case to RTA to issue permit within 30 days based on the amended time table to be submitted by respondent No.1/applicant without following the procedure of publication of notice on the application, in the opinion of this Court is in contravention of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994, therefore, the said part of the order passed by the learned STAT is hereby set-aside. 5 14. While affirming the order of remand, it is directed that if the respondent No.1/applicant submits amended time table, in support of the application for grant of stage carriage permit for plying his vehicle bearing No. CG-10 G 1433 on regional route from Bilaspur to Ambikapur, the RTA shall consider it afresh complying with the provisions of Rule 70-B of the Rules, 1994.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order dated 19.07.2024 passed in WPC No.2235 of 2022 was challenged in Writ Appeal No.792 of 2024 before Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal affirmed the order dated 19.07.2024, as such, there is no doubt that so far as proposed time slot is concerned, the STAT is having no authority and for grant of time slot, RTA is appropriate authority for deciding time slot after hearing the objections raised by concerned bus operators. He submits that so far as locus of the petitioners is concerned, this Court has already passed an order in favour of the petitioner No.2 for grant of permit for the route from Raipur to Kawardha and vice versa in WPC No.6042 of 2024 and other connected matters, as such, petitioners are required to be heard before the RTA. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order passed by the STAT to the extent of granting time slot is not in accordance with law. He submits that the STAT should have remanded the matter to the RTA to decide the time slot after hearing concerned objectors. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that the order passed by the STAT is well merited and not required to be interfered with. He submits that RTA has dismissed his application for grant of permit, as such, there is no question of time slot being given to him by the RTA and during the 6 proceedings of RTA, the other objectors were not heard on the question of grant of time slot. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the challenge raised by the petitioners deserves to be accepted in part. 9. This Court, in WPC No.2235 of 2022 and connected matters, has categorically held that the STAT cannot direct issuance of a permit on the basis of a proposed or amended time table without the Regional Transport Authority undertaking the exercise contemplated under the statutory rules. The said view has also been affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.792 of 2024. The ratio laid down therein squarely governs the present case. 10.In the present case, although the STAT was justified in allowing the appeal and directing grant of the permit in favour of Respondent No.3, it exceeded its jurisdiction in directing that the proposed time slot submitted by Respondent No.3 be granted. The question of allotment of timings ought to have been left to the Regional Transport Authority for consideration in accordance with law after hearing all concerned parties. 11. In view of the above discussion, impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is affirmed insofar as it directs grant of the stage carriage permit in favour of Respondent No.3. However, the impugned order is set aside to the extent it directs grant of the proposed time slot to Respondent No.3. 7 12. The matter is remitted to the Regional Transport Authority to determine and consider an appropriate time slot to Respondent No.3 strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, after issuing notice to all relevant stakeholders, considering their objections, and affording them an opportunity of hearing. 13.It is clarified that this Court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the competing claims regarding the appropriate timings, and the Regional Transport Authority shall decide the issue independently, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the impugned order or in this order. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash