1 CGHC010309302023 2026:CGHC:37773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4129 of 2023 Order Reserved on 10.08.2026 Order Delivered on 24.08.2026 Bastar Travels Through Partner Dhanraj Jain, S/o. Late Shri Ranu Lal Jain, Aged About 61 Years, R/o. Main Road, Narayanpur, District - Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority of Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Sector-27, Third Floor, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - M/s Kanker Roadways Private Limited, Through Director, Navprit Singh Garcha, R/o. Civil Lines, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Subodh Pandey, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.25 16:39:19 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Mr. Subodh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 through Video Conferecing. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, C.G. (in short, “the STAT”) in Revision Petition No. R-13/2021, whereby the revision preferred by respondent No.3 was allowed and the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2 granting permanent permit in favour of the petitioner was quashed, has filed the present petition, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order has been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned STAT Raipur or if the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper remitted the case to the learned Tribunal for passing the order afresh after granting an opportunity of 3 hearing to the petitioner. 10.2 That, if the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper call the records pertaining to petitioner's case. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order which may be deed fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bus operator and is plying stage carriage buses on the strength of permits granted by the competent transport authorities. Vide order dated 29.09.2021, respondent No.2 granted permanent permit No.26/RTA/J/2021 in favour of the petitioner for the route Narayanpur to Raipur via Antagarh, Keverti, Bhanupratappur, Charama, Dhamtari and Abhanpur, with one return trip daily. The petitioner accordingly commenced operation of the vehicle pursuant to the said permit. 4. Respondent No.3, whose objection had been considered and rejected by respondent No.2, preferred Revision Petition No. R- 13/2021 before the learned STAT, challenging the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. Although notice was initially served upon the petitioner and his counsel entered appearance, the matter was taken up on 13.01.2022 and was thereafter fixed for 05.03.2022. However, 05.03.2022 was declared a holiday, on account of which the matter was adjourned and a subsequent date was fixed. The said subsequent date was not communicated to the petitioner or 4 his counsel. The petitioner was informed by the concerned Reader that the matter had been adjourned, but the next date of hearing was not conveyed to him. Consequently, neither the petitioner nor his counsel had any knowledge that the matter had been fixed for 07.03.2022. As the petitioner was unaware of the said date, neither he nor his counsel could appear, and the learned STAT proceeded ex parte against him and fixed the matter for 05.04.2022. Since the said date was also not within the knowledge of the petitioner, he could not appear, and the matter was thereafter fixed for final hearing on 17.05.2022. It is further submitted that, thereafter, on several dates, respondent No.3 himself remained absent; however, despite his non-appearance on three consecutive occasions, the learned STAT did not dismiss the revision petition for want of prosecution. Ultimately, behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing, the learned STAT passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2023, whereby the order passed by the RTA granting permit in favour of the petitioner was set aside. 5. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before his subsisting permit was set aside. It is submitted that the petitioner had initially entered appearance through counsel and his subsequent non-appearance was neither deliberate nor wilful. The matter was taken up on 5 13.01.2022 and was thereafter fixed for 05.03.2022, which was declared a holiday. The petitioner was not informed of the subsequent date fixed thereafter and, consequently, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared on 07.03.2022. The petitioner also could not appear on 05.04.2022, as the said date was not within his knowledge. The Tribunal having remained vacant for several months and thereafter having resumed functioning, and the subsequent dates not having been duly communicated to the petitioner, he could not be proceeded against ex parte without ensuring that he had reasonable notice of the date of hearing. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the findings recorded by the learned STAT on the merits of the permit are perverse and have been rendered without considering the documents and information already furnished by the petitioner before respondent No.2. It is submitted that, after the petitioner could not appear on 07.03.2022 and 05.04.2022 for want of knowledge of the dates fixed, the matter was fixed for final hearing on 17.05.2022. The petitioner had no effective knowledge of the subsequent proceedings and, therefore, could not place his defence before the Tribunal. Merely because certain particulars in the prescribed application form were not filled in, it could not have been concluded that the petitioner had failed to furnish the requisite information, particularly when the relevant documents had otherwise been submitted before the competent authority. 6 7. It is further submitted that several objections raised by respondent No.3 before the STAT, including those relating to alleged tax dues, vehicle registration and cross-timing, were not raised before respondent No.2 at the relevant stage and were subsequently relied upon before the Tribunal. It is submitted that respondent No.3 himself remained absent on several dates after 17.05.2022 and, despite his non-appearance on three consecutive dates, the revision petition was not dismissed for want of prosecution. On the other hand, the petitioner, who had already entered appearance through counsel but was not aware of the dates subsequently fixed, was proceeded against ex parte. The route granted to the petitioner, namely Narayanpur to Raipur, is also distinct from the route of respondent No.3, namely Jagdalpur to Bilaspur, and therefore the finding regarding cross-timing is unsustainable. 8. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.2 had granted the permit after considering the material available on record, and the petitioner, if afforded an opportunity, would have effectively contested the objections raised by respondent No.3. It is submitted that the petitioner could not appear on 07.03.2022 and 05.04.2022 as the dates were not within his knowledge, and thereafter the matter was taken up on various dates without the petitioner having effective notice thereof. At the same time, respondent No.3 also remained absent on three consecutive occasions, yet the revision was not dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the 7 merits, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted to the learned STAT for fresh consideration after granting the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. 9. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter was initially fixed for hearing on 05.03.2022, which was declared a holiday. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for 07.03.2022 and subsequently for 05.04.2022; however, the petitioner or his counsel had no knowledge of the said dates and, consequently, could not appear. The matter was thereafter fixed for final hearing on 17.05.2022 and subsequently taken up on several dates, but the petitioner was not duly informed of the dates fixed. Respondent No.3 also remained absent on three consecutive occasions, which fact was not acted upon by the learned STAT. Ultimately, behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing, the learned STAT passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2023, setting aside the permit granted in his favour. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2, opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the present petition is devoid of merit. He submits that the petitioner had submitted an application 8 for grant of stage carriage permit under Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, along with the requisite documents and proposed time cycle. The application was duly published inviting objections, and after considering the objections raised by the respondent No.3, the Regional Transport Authority passed the order dated 29.09.2021 granting the permit in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that respondent No.3 thereafter preferred a revision before the STAT under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, raising specific objections regarding the proposed time cycle, non-furnishing of certain mandatory documents, including distance certificate, certified map and no- dues certificate, and the nature of the vehicle mentioned in the application. It is submitted that the learned STAT, after considering the grounds raised in revision and the material available on record, allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. 12. It is further submitted that the allegation of the petitioner regarding denial of opportunity of hearing is wholly incorrect. After registration of the revision petition, notice was duly issued and the petitioner appeared through counsel before the STAT on 13.01.2022. Thereafter, on 17.05.2022 also the petitioner appeared through counsel and the matter was adjourned on the 9 request of both parties. However, thereafter the petitioner remained absent on several dates, including the dates fixed for final hearing. Thus, according to learned State counsel, the petitioner was afforded sufficient and repeated opportunities to contest the revision but chose not to remain present, and therefore cannot now allege violation of the principles of natural justice. 13. Learned counsel lastly submits that both the Regional Transport Authority and the STAT exercised their respective statutory and quasi-judicial functions in accordance with law and after providing adequate opportunity to the concerned parties. The present petition, being essentially a challenge to the orders passed by the quasi-judicial authorities and invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not disclose any jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference. The impugned order, therefore, calls for no interference and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Mr. Subodh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, supports the impugned order passed by the learned STAT and submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing before the Tribunal. The petitioner had entered appearance through counsel after receipt of notice and was fully aware of the pendency of the revision petition. It is submitted that the matter was taken up on 13.01.2022 and was thereafter fixed for 05.03.2022. Merely because 05.03.2022 was declared a 10 holiday, it cannot be contended that the petitioner ceased to remain responsible for following the proceedings. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 07.03.2022, but neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The petitioner also failed to appear on 05.04.2022, when the matter was again taken up, and thereafter on 17.05.2022, when it was fixed for final hearing. Learned counsel submits that once the petitioner had entered appearance through counsel and had knowledge of the pendency of the revision, it was incumbent upon him and his counsel to remain vigilant and ascertain the subsequent dates of hearing. Mere absence on the ground of alleged want of information regarding the dates cannot, by itself, invalidate the proceedings, particularly when repeated opportunities were available to the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel further submits that the proceedings before the STAT cannot be said to have been conducted behind the back of the petitioner merely because he failed to appear on the dates fixed. The record demonstrates that after the matter was taken up on 07.03.2022 and 05.04.2022, it was fixed for final hearing on 17.05.2022 and thereafter on several subsequent dates. The petitioner, despite having initially entered appearance through counsel, did not take adequate steps to ascertain the status of the case or ensure his representation. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot take advantage of his own negligence or lack of diligence and subsequently seek to invalidate the entire proceedings by alleging violation of natural justice. There is no 11 provision requiring issuance of a fresh notice on every date or merely because the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was transferred or a new Presiding Officer assumed charge. 16. Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by respondent No.2 granting the stage carriage permit was itself contrary to the applicable provisions of law, as the application submitted by the petitioner was incomplete and several mandatory particulars and documents had not been furnished. The learned STAT, upon consideration of the entire record, rightly found the grant of permit to be unsustainable and also considered the issue of overlapping/cross-timing and other statutory requirements. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot seek remand merely on the ground of his own failure to remain present, particularly when the Tribunal had proceeded on the basis of the material available on record. The findings recorded by the STAT are supported by the law laid down by this Court in the cases relied upon by respondent No.3. 17. Learned counsel lastly submits that respondent No.3 himself had also participated in the proceedings and had raised objections to the grant of permit, and therefore the revision petition could not have been dismissed merely on account of his absence on certain dates when the matter was thereafter being considered on merits. It is submitted that the petitioner, having entered appearance through counsel, was under an obligation to remain vigilant and to 12 keep track of the proceedings. The petitioner failed to appear on 07.03.2022, 05.04.2022 and thereafter on the dates fixed for final hearing, despite the matter having remained pending before the learned STAT. Such repeated non-appearance cannot be equated with denial of opportunity, particularly when the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the revision from its inception. The petitioner has thus failed to establish any actual prejudice caused to him on account of the procedure adopted by the learned STAT. 18. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that where an applicant seeking grant of permit fails to fill in all the requisite columns of the application and furnish the mandatory information and documents, such incomplete application cannot be treated as a valid application for grant of permit. The learned STAT, upon examining the record and finding that the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements, has rightly set aside the order granting permit in his favour. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot use the plea of natural justice as a means to overcome the substantive defects in his application. Since the impugned order is based upon the material available on record and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice arising from the alleged non-communication of the dates, no interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and other material 13 available on record. I have also considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have examined the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the applicable provisions of law. 20. Upon consideration of the material available on record, the principal issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the learned STAT was justified in allowing the revision preferred by respondent No.3 and setting aside the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner, particularly when the petitioner alleges that the matter was decided without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully examined the order-sheets of the proceedings before the learned STAT, as well as the documents placed on record by the parties. 21. The controversy, therefore, requires to be examined not only with regard to the alleged violation of the principles of natural justice but also in the backdrop of the objections raised by respondent No.3 concerning the validity of the permit granted to the petitioner and the findings recorded by the learned STAT in that regard. 22. In view of the aforesaid, the material available on record is now required to be examined to determine whether the impugned order 14 suffers from any procedural or legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 23. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to extract in detail the relevant provisions of Rule 70-B of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, which deal with regulation and determination of timings of stage carriage permits, fixation of frequency, speed of stage carriages, stoppages and halting time, the procedure for determination of time cycle, and the powers of the State Government. The said provision assumes significance in the present case, particularly in view of the rival submissions concerning the proposed time cycle, alleged cross-timing and the procedure required to be followed by the Permit Granting Authority while considering an application for grant of stage carriage permit. Rule 70-B is reproduced as under:- “70-B. For Regulating Timing of Stage Carriage Permit.— (1) Necessity.— Subject to the provisions of Section 71, for consideration and determination of time cycle on any route regarding grant of application of new Stage Carriage permit or for the change of time cycle of existing permit, the Permit Granting Authority, at the time of consideration and determination of application shall pay special attention to the following points:- (a) Providing benefit and facility of travelling public; (b) Time cycle interlude and time cycle clash on 15 route to operators of other route; (c) Consideration of speed of Stage Carriage services, need of service for short distance or long distance, namely up to 100 Kms., up to 200 Kms. or more than 200 Kms.; (d) Consideration of necessity of timings between two terminals of the route on the applied timings and whether the applied timings fall in rush hours of traffic or slack hours, benefit to travelling public particularly to remote rural areas and backward areas, etc. and also the necessity of “Ordinary Service” or “Express Service” or “Deluxe Service” thereon; (e) Necessity of appropriate timings for co- ordination of road and rail transport and connectivity between tourist places, religious or industrial towns etc. on the route; (f) Guidelines of superior Court/authority in respect of timings; and (g) Consideration of objections of existing bus operators and demand and suggestions from the public, NGOs, public representatives etc. (2) Fixation of frequency.— (i) For the smooth operation of bus services on routes without litigation, quarrel and unhealthy competition, and for proper interlude of time cycle, it is necessary to maintain discipline thereon. In order to achieve this objective, the Permit Granting Authority shall fix the frequency (frequency means interval of timings between two services on a route) 16 of each Regional or Inter-regional route. For determining the frequency between dawn to eleven o’clock in the night, such authority shall pay attention to the following:- (a) Guidelines as mentioned in sub-rule (2); (b) Necessity of service during peak hours of traffic and lean hours of traffic on a particular route; and (c) Any other relevant matters that the Authority desires to consider. (ii) Subject to the provision of clause (1), the Permit Granting Authority shall categorize the road on the basis of density of traffic— (a) High density traffic road means such road on which Stage Carriages are running in large number with close interlude of zero to ten minutes and passenger traffic load is very high. (b) Medium density traffic road means such road which has medium traffic and on which Stage Carriages are running normally with a gap of 15 to 30 minutes. (c) Low density traffic road means such road which is neither High density traffic road nor Medium density traffic road. Note: “Road” for the purpose of this clause means any highway from one point to another as considered necessary by the Permit Granting Authority on which several different routes overlap or otherwise. (3) Speed of Stage Carriages regarding time 17 cycle.— Subject to the provision of Section 112 of the Act and for fixation of common timings, the speed of Stage Carriage running on a permit in Chhattisgarh State shall be as under:- (i) Ordinary Stage Carriage — 35 kms. per hour; (ii) Ordinary Express Stage Carriage — 40 kms. per hour; (iii) Deluxe Bus — 45 kms. per hour; (iv) Deluxe Express Bus — 50 kms. per hour; and (v) Night Service Bus — 55 kms. per hour. (4) Stoppages and halting time for stage carriages.— (i) On every stage carriage route, on which other route overlaps partly or fully or otherwise, the Permit Granting Authority shall fix the common stoppages and the halting times of all permits granted or to be granted on such route. Such stoppages and halting times may be separately fixed for different types of services, i.e., “Ordinary Service”, “Express Service” or “Deluxe Service” etc. (ii) In every order of grant or renewal of Stage Carriage permit, the Permit Granting Authority shall specifically indicate the type of service, i.e., “Ordinary Service”, “Express Service” or “Deluxe Service” etc. and en-route stoppages of such route, which shall not be varied from the stoppages and halting times fixed under clause (i) above. (iii) Permit Granting Authority, while determining route timings shall allot the stoppages/halting times 18 of en-route stations as follows:- Stage Carriers for en-route Ordinary Express/ Deluxe District Head Quarters 10 minutes 05 minutes Tehsil Head Quarters 05 minutes 03 minutes Other towns having population less than 10,000 03 minutes 02 minutes Villages 01 minute Nil Provided that the Permit Granting Authority may vary timings, in particular cases, of industrial town, religious place, tourist place or otherwise falling on the route, giving reasons for such variation in the order, which shall apply to all services on such route. (iv) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iii), the stoppage timings of halting stations of a night service running more than 200 kms. one side shall be 5 minutes at en-route district headquarters and 15 minutes for meal-break at any Dhaba or hotel. (v) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), (ii) and (iii) above, timings of Inter-State route shall be governed by the provisions of particular Reciprocal Transport Agreement with the State of Chhattisgarh. However, stoppage and halting times may be fixed under sub-rule (6). (vi) The Permit Granting Authority shall comply with the provisions of sub-rule (6) within three months from the date of coming into force of these rules. 19 (5) Procedure for determination of time cycle.— (i) Subject to the provisions of Section 71, the Permit Granting Authority, on receipt of an application in respect of grant of Stage Carriage Permit or change of timings thereof, shall publish the summary of such application on the office notice board along with the date of hearing, for inviting any representation within seven days from such publication. (ii) On the appointed date of hearing, the application along with any representation shall be considered by such Authority in the presence of both the parties. (iii) Every Permit Granting Authority shall maintain a computerized route-wise chart of time cycle according to the provisions of this rule. (iv) Appropriate order shall be passed considering the provisions of this rule, within the time limit fixed by sub-rule (4) of Rule 74. (6) Powers of the State Government.— (a) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 70- A, and considering the frequent bus accidents, overloading of passengers, quarrel between route operators regarding shortage of interlude of time cycle or any other relevant matters such as need to provide better and comfortable services to passengers, safety of women passengers, congestion of Stage Carriage services of lower seating capacity etc., the State Government may, by order, fix the higher carrying capacity of buses 20 plying on high density traffic road mentioned in sub- rule (4) of this rule under a valid permit. Such registered carrying capacity may not be less than 40 seats in respect of “Ordinary Services” and not less than 35 seats in respect of “Deluxe Services”. Time of six months may be allowed by the State Government for replacement of operating vehicles on such notified routes. (b) The State Government may grant relaxation, partially or completely, by order, in respect of a particular route from one or any of the above conditions, giving reasons in writing.” 24. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the order- sheets of the proceedings before the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, this Court finds substantial force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the final adjudication of the revision petition has taken place without affording an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order-sheets assume considerable significance in the present matter, as the question is not merely whether notice of the revision petition was initially served upon the petitioner, but whether the petitioner was made aware of the dates on which the matter was subsequently taken up and, more particularly, whether he had a reasonable opportunity to place his defence before the learned STAT before an adverse order was passed against him. 25. From a perusal of the order-sheets, it appears that the matter was 21 initially fixed for hearing on 05.03.2022. However, the said date was declared a holiday. In such circumstances, once the date originally fixed for hearing stood cancelled on account of the declaration of holiday, the subsequent date fixed by the Tribunal ought to have been duly communicated to the parties, particularly when the proceedings were already pending and the petitioner was being represented through counsel. The material placed before this Court does not demonstrate that the subsequent date fixed by the learned STAT was duly communicated to the petitioner or his counsel. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the date on which the matter was thereafter taken up and, for such reason, could not appear before the learned Tribunal. 26. The aforesaid aspect assumes greater significance in view of the fact that the petitioner had not remained completely indifferent to the proceedings. The petitioner had entered appearance through counsel and had participated in the proceedings on earlier occasions. Thus, this is not a case where the petitioner, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, deliberately chose not to participate from the inception. The subsequent absence of the petitioner has to be considered in the backdrop of the fact that the date fixed after 05.03.2022, which had been declared a holiday, was not shown to have been duly communicated to him. Therefore, merely on the basis of his subsequent non- appearance, the petitioner could not have been deprived of an 22 effective opportunity of contesting the revision petition. 27. It is also borne out from the record that respondent No.3 himself did not appear on three consecutive dates. The learned Tribunal was also not continuously functioning during the relevant period, as the earlier Presiding Officer had ceased to hold the office and thereafter a new Presiding Officer came to be appointed. In such a situation, when there was a change in the Presiding Officer and the Tribunal subsequently resumed its functioning, and the dates thereafter were not within the knowledge of the parties, the concerned authority ought to have ensured that the parties were duly informed of the date on which the matter was to be taken up. Such course would have been particularly necessary in a matter where the petitioner had already entered appearance through counsel and where the final adjudication was likely to result in adverse civil consequences. 28. This Court is conscious of the submission advanced by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that there is no specific provision requiring issuance of a fresh notice merely because there has been a change of the Presiding Officer. However, the issue before this Court is not whether a fresh notice was mandatorily required in every case upon change of the Presiding Officer. The issue is whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner was afforded a reasonable and effective opportunity of hearing before an order adverse to his rights was 23 passed. The principles of natural justice cannot be reduced to a mere technical formality. The essence of the rule of audi alteram partem is that a person whose rights are likely to be adversely affected must have reasonable notice of the proceedings and a real opportunity to meet the case against him. 29. The consequence of the failure to communicate the subsequent date becomes more serious because the petitioner was thereafter proceeded ex parte. Once the petitioner was declared ex parte on account of his absence, the learned STAT proceeded to hear the revision petition and ultimately passed the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 setting aside the permit granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the final order was passed behind the back of the petitioner, without the petitioner having an opportunity to answer the objections raised by respondent No.3 and without placing his defence in relation to the findings which ultimately weighed with the learned STAT. 30. The adverse consequences flowing from the impugned order cannot be ignored. By the impugned order, the stage carriage permit granted in favour of the petitioner by the competent Regional Transport Authority was set aside. The order, therefore, directly affects the petitioner's right to operate his stage carriage vehicle pursuant to the permit granted in his favour and undoubtedly entails civil consequences. Whenever an adjudicatory authority proposes to pass an order resulting in such adverse civil 24 consequences, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice assumes greater significance. An affected party must be given an effective opportunity not only to appear but also to meet the case set up against him and to place the relevant material in support of his defence. 31. In the present case, the learned STAT has proceeded to examine the matter on merits and has recorded findings against the petitioner in respect of several issues, including the alleged non- compliance with Rule 72(3), non-filling of Columns 10, 12 and 15 of the application form, the alleged crossing time-table and other objections relating to the vehicle and permit. These findings have resulted in the permit granted to the petitioner being quashed. However, before such findings could be recorded, the petitioner ought to have been granted an effective opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the alleged deficiencies occurred and to meet the objections raised by respondent No.3. The correctness or otherwise of those objections is a matter which ought to be examined by the statutory revisional authority after hearing all concerned parties. 32. The principle that an order having civil consequences should not ordinarily be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing is well settled. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, and others (1967) SCC OnLine SC 15, the Supreme Court emphasized that even an administrative order involving civil 25 consequences must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Likewise, in Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, (1978) 1 SCC 248, the Supreme Court reiterated the fundamental importance of fair procedure and held that the audi alteram partem rule is an essential requirement of a fair decision- making process. 33. More recently, the Supreme Court in Veena Gupta and Another v. Central Pollution Control Board and others, (2024) 11 SCC 701, while dealing with proceedings in which the affected parties had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to contest the matter, set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after notice and opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The aforesaid principle reinforces the settled position that where an adjudicatory order adversely affecting a party has been passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing, the appropriate course is to set aside such order and remit the matter to the competent authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. “5. Significantly, these orders have consistently faced stays from this Court, resulting in the unraveling of the commendable efforts put forth by the learned Members, lawyers, and other stakeholders, Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors.,(2023) 8 SCC 35. This Court has already noticed the practice of the Tribunal in not providing an opportunity of 26 hearing to the affected party and consequently set aside its orders and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration after following principles of natural justice. It is imperative for the Tribunal to infuse a renewed sense of procedural integrity, ensuring that its actions resonate with a harmonious balance between justice and due process. Only then can it reclaim its standing as a beacon of environmental protection, where well-intentioned endeavors are not simply washed away. 6. It appears that the appellants did not have a full opportunity to contest the matter and place all their defenses before the Tribunal. They filed this appeal and by order dated 04.03.2022, this Court stayed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. This was inevitable. Two years have passed by and the stay is still operating. We have no other alternative except to set aside the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021 and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal issue notices to all the necessary parties, hear them in detail, and pass appropriate orders. Needless to say that the Tribunal shall hear the case, uninfluenced by the observations and conclusions drawn in the orders dated 31.08.2021 and 26.11.2021.” 34. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the declaration of the petitioner as ex parte and the consequential final adjudication cannot be sustained. The absence of the petitioner was not shown to be wholly attributable to a deliberate or wilful refusal on his part to participate in the proceedings. On the contrary, the 27 circumstances emerging from the order-sheets indicate that the matter was initially fixed on 05.03.2022, which was declared a holiday, and thereafter the petitioner was not shown to have been duly informed of the subsequent date. The subsequent change in the Presiding Officer and the period during which the Tribunal was not functioning also constitute relevant circumstances which ought to have been taken into consideration before proceeding against the petitioner ex parte. 35. It is equally significant that respondent No.3, who is the revisionist before the learned STAT and the principal contesting party against the petitioner, had also remained absent on three consecutive dates. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner cannot be viewed in isolation or treated as sufficient justification for finally deciding the revision behind his back, particularly when the petitioner had already entered appearance and had participated in the proceedings at earlier stages. The circumstances, therefore, do not justify the conclusion that the petitioner had consciously and deliberately abandoned his right of hearing. 36. In the opinion of this Court, adherence to the principles of natural justice is a sine qua non before passing an order having adverse civil consequences. The requirement of hearing is not satisfied merely by issuing an initial notice or by recording that a party had appeared on an earlier date. What is required is an effective opportunity at the stage when the matter is finally considered and 28 an adverse order is proposed to be passed. In the present case, the petitioner was ultimately declared ex parte and the revision petition was decided on merits in his absence. The final order, therefore, has been rendered without providing the petitioner a meaningful opportunity to meet the case against him. 37. This Court, therefore, does not deem it appropriate to examine the merits of the findings recorded by the learned STAT regarding the alleged deficiencies in the application, the applicability of Rule 72(3), the alleged crossing time-table, the registration of the vehicle or any other objection raised by respondent No.3. Once this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing, the proper course would be to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the learned STAT for fresh consideration. Any expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the rival claims at this stage may prejudice the parties and the statutory authority. 38. Accordingly, for the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in Revision Petition No. R-13/2021 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 is hereby set aside. 29 39. The matter is accordingly remitted back to the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh Raipur, for fresh adjudication of Revision Petition No. R-13/2021. The learned STAT shall restore the revision petition to its original number and decide the same afresh strictly in accordance with law, after affording due, adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3. 40. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the revision petition or on the correctness of the objections raised by respondent No.3. All questions relating to the validity of the permit, compliance with the statutory requirements, the alleged deficiencies in the application form, the time cycle/cross timing, the vehicle in question and all other issues raised by the parties are left open to be considered by the learned STAT independently on their own merits. 41. Since the matter pertains to the year 2021-22 and has remained pending for considerable time, the learned STAT is directed to make an endeavour to decide the revision petition expeditiously. The parties, who are represented before this Court, are directed to appear before the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, on 16.09.2026, and the said date shall be treated as the date of appearance before the learned STAT. No separate notice shall be necessary for their appearance on the said date. 42. The petitioner as well as respondent No.3 shall be entitled to place 30 their respective cases, documents and submissions before the learned STAT. The learned STAT shall, thereafter, afford the petitioner and respondent No.3 due opportunity of hearing and, in particular, shall not proceed against either of them ex parte without ensuring proper communication of the date of hearing and reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings. 43. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the learned STAT shall grant three further effective opportunities to the petitioner to present his case, if necessary, and shall thereafter proceed to hear the revision petition on merits. The learned STAT shall ensure that the opportunity so granted is meaningful and not merely formal. 44. The learned STAT is further directed to endeavour to conclude the proceedings and pass an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from 16.09.2026. While doing so, the learned STAT shall consider the pleadings, documents and submissions of both sides and shall pass the order uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the present order on the merits of the controversy. 45. It is further clarified that the setting aside of the impugned order is on the ground of denial of an effective opportunity of hearing and violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court has not adjudicated upon the substantive validity of the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority or the objections raised by respondent No.3. The learned STAT shall, therefore, examine the 31 entire controversy afresh and arrive at its own conclusion in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 46. In view of the aforesaid discussion and directions, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh Raipur, in Revision Petition No. R-13/2021 is hereby quashed/set aside. Revision Petition No. R-13/2021 shall stand restored to its original number and shall be decided afresh by the learned STAT after affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The parties shall appear before the learned STAT on 16.09.2026. The learned STAT shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the directions contained herein and shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within four weeks from the said date. 47. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 10.08.2026 24.08.2026 ------ 25.08.2026