ORDER : Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J. 1. Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition are that 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. Application submitted by the respondent-Bus Owner was allowed vide order dated 19.12.2019 with certain conditions. Transporter, as per the condition mentioned in the permit made an application initially on 17.12.2020 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 was submitted before the RTA, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for issuance of permit on 13.9.2021. When the RTA Raipur did not pass any order, Transporter has approached State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) by way of filing an appeal. The Appellate Tribunal issued notice to respondent therein 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 appellants therein 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 challenged by the State in the instant petition on the ground mentioned therein as also by the bus owner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners/State would submit 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 have 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. Transporter has not made any attempt for obtaining permit pursuant to order passed by RTA on 19.12.2019. State Govt. vide Notification dated 24.12.2019 have constituted a Single Regional Transport Authority for Chhattisgarh State at Raipur, abolished all the Regional Transport Authorities in Division and Regions. Respondent for the first time made an application before the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur on 13.09.2021 which is after lapse of 30 days as prescribed in order dated 19.12.2019 for obtaining permit and to start plying of buses. Respondent for the first time made an application before the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur on 13.09.2021 which is after lapse of 30 days as prescribed in order dated 19.12.2019 for obtaining permit and to start plying of buses. 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. He also referred to Section 89 of the Act of 1988 and submitted that the respondent has preferred an 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. 3. Learned counsel for Transporter would submit that under Rule 74 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules 1994 (for short the “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 applicant /Transporter. RTA Jagdalpur at no point of time had intimated the fact of allowing the application of respondent. Hence, submission of the petitioner 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 their application by RTA, Jagdalpur and, thereafter, he moved an application for obtaining the order dated 19.12.2019 so that he 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 19 th March 2020 and thereafter due to outbreak of Covid -19 pandemic, there was nationwide lock-down. Transportation of passenger carrying vehicles was also stopped, Govt. offices were closed. After normalization of situation, Transporter went to office of 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 respondent-State authority waited for consideration of their representation and when nothing has been communicated to him, he has again submitted application before RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur on 13.09.2021. His application was again not disposed of either way by RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur. The respondent who has to ply the vehicle under the supervision and the control of respondent-State authority waited for consideration of their representation and when nothing has been communicated to him, he has again submitted application before RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur on 13.09.2021. His application was again not disposed of either way by RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur. Aggrieved by the inaction of RTA, Transporter approached the STAT Raipur by way of filing appeal. STAT, Raipur considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also hearing the counsel appearing for RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur, the affidavit submitted by the petitioners No. 2 & 3/State authority before STAT who are the authorized persons for issuing permit, passed the impugned order. Before STAT Raipur, State authorities have stated on affidavit that there is no hurdle or bar in issuance of permit in favour of appellant therein. The Appellate Tribunal allowed appeal, granted 7 days time to issue permit in favour of the respondent. Transporter was suffering financial loss since December 2020, but even after lapse of period of seven days till date, RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur has not issued permit arbitrarily. This shows their arbitrary act and intention not to issue permit in favour of respondent. He contended that RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur has issued permit in favour of other bus owner who has also made application before RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur pursuant to order passed by RTA of Durg and Jagdalpur (before new notification), but the application submitted by the respondent/bus owner has been kept at hold. Hence, the impugned order passed by the STAT, Raipur, Chhattisgarh does not call for any interference. 4. At this stage, State counsel submits that application of Transporter was under consideration before the competent authority for issuance of permit but within a period of 15 days of submission of 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 28.9.2021 i.e. within less than 15 days . Hence, the observations made by the STAT against the State authority are not warranted in the facts of the case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. Application was submitted only on 13.9.2021 whereas appeal was filed on 28.9.2021 i.e. within less than 15 days . Hence, the observations made by the STAT against the State authority are not warranted in the facts of the case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to non-compliance of the order passed by 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 records would show that the petitioner-State has 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 Transporter in terms of Rule 74 (3) of the Rules of 1994, before obtaining certified copy by them. Even there is no such pleading in writ petition specifically mentioning the date on which the bus owner was communicated of 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 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 petitioner/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 order. Hence, the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-State is repelled. 8. Period of 30 days will start from the date of knowledge of passing order. Hence, the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-State is repelled. 8. Submission of learned counsel for respondent that he obtained certified copy after getting information from the other sources is appearing from the records of the appeal filed before the STAT. Along with the memo of appeal, respondent has enclosed certified copy of order dated 19.12.2019 passed by RTA Bastar Division Jagdalpur. From 25 th March 2020, due to outbreak of Covid -19 pandemic, there was nationwide lock-down and movement of buses and private vehicles was stopped for some time by virtue of order and direction issued by the Central Govt. and the State Govt. Transporter has submitted representation/application before the RAT Chhattisgarh Raipur on 17.12.2020 which is also filed along with memo of appeal before the STAT as Annexure A-2. RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur has not rejected the representation till date nor have communicated to respondent. Undisputedly, respondent again submitted application on 13.9.2021 which remained undecided. 9. So far as submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the bus owner did not approach for obtaining permit within 30 days is concerned, 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 dated 10 January 2022 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 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 case is that when the counsel for petitioner- 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. Petitioner's-State counsel before STAT has not assigned any reason or ground for not issuing permit in favour of 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. 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 State before 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 petitioner/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. 11. In the facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, 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 RTA, Chhattisgarh Raipur to issue permit in favour of Transporter, within specified period is not erroneous. 12. The second ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that Appellate Tribunal erred in making observation adverse to the interest of the State officials is having some force. Perusal of the record of appeal would show that respondent (bus owner) herein has filed application on 13.09.2021 before RTA ,Chhattisgarh, Raipur, whereas an appeal before STAT was filed on 28.09.2021. In view of the aforementioned undisputed fact that respondent has filed appeal within 15 days of the time of filing application before the RTA Chhattisgarh Raipur, it cannot be said that 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 any of the Transporter for issuance of permit pursuant to order passed by 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 Jagdalpur, all Regional Transport Authorities were abolished and RTA at State level at Raipur was constituted vide notification dated 24.12.2019. More so when after passing of order allowing application under Section 72 of the Act of 1988 by RTA Bastar Jagdalpur, all Regional Transport Authorities were abolished and RTA at State level at Raipur was constituted vide notification dated 24.12.2019. Considering the 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 of Rs.10,000/- was unwarranted. However, petitioners 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 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. 14. Today, learned State counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in compliance of impugned order dated 29.01.2022 (Annexure-P/1), a permit has been issued to the respondent-Bus owner by the Joint Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nawa Raipur (CG) for the period 15.07.2022 to 14.07.2027. He has also produced a copy of the licence/permit along with covering memo dated 27.01.2026. 15. Considering the above submission of learned State counsel, no further order with regard to issuance of permit is required at this juncture. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observation, the Writ Petition filed by the State is allowed to the extent indicated above.