2026:JHHC:8225-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No.553 of 2025 ----- Emran Ansari, son of Ibrahim Ansari, resident of 183 Beltoli, Road Dumri, P.O. & P.S. Nawadih, District Gumla. .......... Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Transport, Government of Jharkhand, F.F.P. Building, HEC Area, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. South Chota Nagpur Regional Transport Authority, through its Chairman, Katchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 3. Secretary, South Chota Nagpur Regional Transport Authority, Katchery Chowk, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4. Rekha Soni, wife of Shiv Prasad Soni, resident of D.S.P. Road, P.O., P.S. & District Gumla. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Sahay, Advocate For the State : Ms. Rishi Bharati, AC to AAG-III ----- Order No.02 Date: 24.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Sudhir Sahay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s only objection is to the observation in paragraph-4 of the learned Single Judge’s order dated 23rd July, 2025 of which suggests that the appellant wanted to avoid competition and perpetuate monopoly. He submits that this is incorrect and, in any event, there is no bar for grant of permits since the concept of monopoly does not apply under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. We have perused the learned Single Judge’s order dated 23rd July, 2025. Based on the observation in paragraph-4, we cannot say that the learned Single Judge has made any observations on 2026:JHHC:8225-DB 2 whether or not the principle of monopoly would apply under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. The only issue before the learned Single Judge was whether the revisional authority was justified dismissing the appellant’s revision application on the ground of bar of limitation. The learned Single Judge has answered this issue and held that there was no infirmity in the view taken by the revisional authority. The learned Single Judge has further observed that though the revisional authority made its order on 16th August, 2023, the writ petition was filed only on 24th January, 2025 without explaining the delay or laches that was involved. 5. Therefore, the apprehension of the appellant that the issue of monopoly has been decided by the learned Single Judge is misconceived. 6. As a result, there is no case made out to interfere with the learned Single Judge’s order. This L.P.A. is, accordingly, dismissed. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 24th March, 2026 Sanjay/AKT Uploaded on 25.03.2026