1 CGHC010035642022 2026:CGHC:32722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 659 of 2022 Ramchandra Gupta S/o Late Sarju Sao Aged About 66 Years, Through Power Of Attorney Rajesh Gupta S/o Shri Ramchandra Gupta, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Darripara, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Sector 27, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - New Royal Travels, New Bus Stand Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 694 of 2022 Rajesh Gupta S/o Shri Ramchandra Gupta, Aged About 50 Years R/o Darripara, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.08.01 16:06:44 +0530 2 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur, Sector 27, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - New Royal Travels, New Bus Stand Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 660 of 2022 M/s Adarsh Travels Bus Service, Through Power Of Attorney Rajmani Mourya S/o Late Shitla Prasad Mourya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Old Bus Stand Road, Infront of Anand Hotel, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Sector- 27, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Abhishek Singh S/o Rajkishore Singh, Aged About 30 Years Kabir Chowk, Jute Mill Raod, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 3 WPC No. 662 of 2022 M/s Adarsh Travels Bus Service, Through Power of Attorney Rajmani Mourya S/o Late Shitla Prasad Mourya, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Old Bus Stand Road, Infront of Anand Hotel, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Sector 27, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Abhishek Singh S/o Rajkishore Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Kabir Chowk, Jute Mill Road, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respective Respondents : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate S B: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/07/2026 1. The factual matrix in all the above captioned writ petitions being the same, they were heard analogously and are being disposed 4 of by this common order. In sum and substance, the reliefs claimed in all the writ petitions are identical. For the sake of convenience, WPC No.659/2022 is taken as the lead case for disposal of all the writ petitions and the reliefs claimed therein read as under : 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to call for the complete record pertaining to the case. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 16.12.2021 which has been passed illegally violating the mandatory provisions of the Act. 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which may deem fit and proper. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner has challenged the permanent stage carriage permit granted vide order dated 16.12.2021 in favour of respondent No.3-Bus Operator for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 24.9.2021 on the subject route by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Raipur (CG). It has been contended that there is direct clash between operational timings of the bus of the petitioner and that of respondent No.3-Bus Operator. As such, the petitioner had duly submitted an objection against the grant of the said permit before the respondent authorities. It is further contended that the application submitted by the private respondent - bus operator was incomplete and not in conformity with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the 5 Act”), specifically Section 72 (2) (iii) and Section 86 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner had prayed for the rejection of the said permit application. However, without proper application of mind, the respondent authority passed the impugned order rejecting the objection of the petitioner and granting a permanent stage carriage permit for a period of five years in favour of respondent No.3. Hence, this petition. 3. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajapyee, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. He submits that the application filed by the respondent- private bus operator was incomplete and the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) in respect of tax clearance was not submitted. Further, the impugned order has been passed in violation of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, the impugned order(s) is unsustainable and liable to be set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the concerned respondent authorities rightly considered the objection and has passed the impugned order(s) in favour of the private bus operator(s), which is in consonance with Section 72 of the Act. So far as objection raised by the petitioner with regard to clash of timings is concerned, the time slot was allotted only after considering the said objection and upon affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the other bus operators, therefore, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the respondent authorities in granting the permit. Additionally, 6 it has been argued that in the absence of any interim order passed by this Court against the impugned order, the private respondent-bus operator has already completed his five-year permit tenure. Hence, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner have become redundant and the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous by passage of time. 5. Replying to the above, learned for the petitioners submit that the petition has not been rendered infrucuous. He submits that the private respondent has applied for or obtained a renewal of the permit on the basis of the impugned initial permit. Hence, it is incorrect to state that the petition has become infructuos. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents annexed with the petition(s) with utmost circumspection. 7. Evidently, a perusal of the impugned order(s) does not show that the petitioner was duly afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing of the said order. On the contrary, it appears that the whatsoever objections were raised by the present petitioner(s) as well as other respondent-bus operator(s), have been duly considered. Further, the grounds that the petitioner are raising before this Court were also adverted to and considered by the concerned RTA. Both the petitioner(s) as well as the private respondent-bus operator(s) have been running their respective buses on the subject route under permanent permits granted for a duration of five years, which appear to have lapsed by efflux of time. Moreover, even if the submission of learned counsel for the 7 petitioner that the permit may have been renewed, is taken into consideration, there is no documentary evidence on record to show whether the permit was, in fact, renewed, rejected or objected to by the concerned parties . In the absence of cogent material on record, this Court cannot proceed on mere assumptions and presumptions. 8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders in all the writ petitions have been passed by the competent authority in accordance with law and the same does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 9. Furthermore, even otherwise, the period of permanent stage carriage permits has already expired after five-year period. In the absence of any interim stay orders passed in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of these petitions, the grounds raised herein have been rendered academic by the passage of time. Since the buses were operated throughout the five-year period on the subject route under the impugned permits, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned orders passed by the RTA, Raipur in all the writ petitions. In view of the above, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Needless to say, if the petitioners are aggrieved by any subsequent renewal of the permanent stage carriage permits or the fixation/alteration of operational bus timings, they would be at 8 liberty to file appropriate applications or representations before the concerned authority in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, all the Writ Petitions are finally disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay