1 CGHC010357612026 2026:CGHC:41676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4902 of 2026 1 - Manoj Kumar Mantri S/o Late Shri Fateh Chandra Matri Aged About 55 Years R/o- Lohardaga Road, Kartik Urawn, Village- Gumla, Tahsil- Gumla, Dist. Gumla, (Jharkhand) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The State Transport Authority Through Its Secretary Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 (Annexure-P/1) whereby respondent no. 1 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of 9 days delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had applied for grant of stoppage at Kunkuri, Bandarchua & Kashabel on the route of Ranchi to Korba via Bedo, Gumla, Jashpur, Patthalgaon, Dharamjaigarh, Kharsia & Shakti and one trip back of this Bus bearing No. JH 07 M 1889. The said application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 2 18.03.2026 by Respondent No.2, against which, petitioner came before this Court in WP(C) No. 2016/2026 and on 28.04.2026, petitioner withdrew the said petition, however, a direction was issued to the STAT to decide the case of the petitioner within 45 days if the petitioner approaches it within 15 days. 3. The petitioner in compliance of the said order, approached the STAT for grant of stoppage, however the STAT rejected the application of the petitioner holding that the petitioner from the date of passing of order dated 28.04.2026 by the High Court ought to have approached them by 13.05.2026, however, the petitioner with a delay of 9 days has preferred the application on 22.05.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent no. 1 ought to have considered that, the appeal which was preferred by the petitioner in compliance of this Court’s order dated 28.04.2026 should not have been rejected in a technical manner by a non-speaking order. Due to inadvertent bonafide mistake, the petitioner preferred appeal which was barred by 9 days, however, the same could have been condoned by the Tribunal. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the delay of nine days in approaching the STAT deserves to be condoned. The delay is neither substantial nor inordinate and, in the facts of the present case, appears to have occurred on account of an inadvertent and bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner while complying with the direction contained in the order dated 3 28.04.2026 passed by this Court. The petitioner had, in fact, pursued the matter before this Court and thereafter approached the STAT pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. In such circumstances, a hyper- technical approach in refusing to entertain the petitioner’s case merely on account of a short delay of nine days would result in the petitioner being denied an adjudication of his grievance on merits. The interest of substantial justice would, therefore, be served by adopting a liberal and pragmatic approach and condoning the aforesaid delay, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the respondents on account of such delay. 6. Accordingly, the delay of nine days in approaching the STAT is condoned. Consequently, the order dated 24.06.2026 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the STAT to consider and decide the petitioner’s case on its merits, in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days, provided the petitioner approaches the STAT within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Madhurima