1 2026:CGHC:15647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1409 of 2026 Shubhankar Jaiswal S/o Shri Shyam Narayan Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Shanti Nagar, Pali, Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner. Versus The Regional Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG. For Intervener (Karikey Dubey) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, whereby, application filed by the petitioner for grant of permanent stage carriage permit has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed application on 23.05.2025 (Annexure-P/2) before the respondent for grant of permanent stage carriage permit, but the same rejected by the respondent Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.04.07 10:26:07 +0530 2 vide impugned order (Annexure-P/1) on the ground of overlapping timing of vehicles. He further submits that while rejecting the application of the petitioner the respondent has not provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided in second proviso to Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Hence, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) may be set- aside with a direction to respondent to pass a fresh order after complying relevant provision of the Act 1988. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the intervener supports the contention made by learned State counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed with the petition. 6. Before proceed in the matter it would apt to note provision of Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988:- "80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.— (1) *** *** *** (2) A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act: Provided that the [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub- section (1) of section 66] may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed 3 and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74: Provided further that where a [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter." 7. From plain perusal of second proviso to Section 80(2) of the Act 1988, it is apparent that there is a requirement of the Authorities to first apply their mind in deciding the application under Section 72 of the Act 1988 and in the event, if authorities find that the application cannot be permitted or was inclined to be rejected, the same i.e. intention of the rejection of the same has to be communicated to the applicant concerned and an opportunity of hearing has to be given keeping in consonance sub-section (2) of the Section 71 of the Act 1988, where the Authorities can grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicant concerned for amending the time table if they so want. So that their application and objections can be considered in that regard. 8. In the case at hand, this exercise perhaps has not been undertaken by the respondent/Authority while passing the impugned order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P/1). A plain perusal of the impugned order also does not reflect that the requirement of the proviso to the sub-section (2) of Section 71 of the Act 1988 as also requirement of the proviso under sub-section (2) of the Section 80 of the Act 1988 having been complied with or adhered to in the process of passing of the impugned order Annexure P/1. 4 9. Further, though from the plain reading of the impugned order, it appears that petitioner was permitted to participate in the virtual hearing while deciding the application but the mandatory requirement which is otherwise required as stipulated in the preceding paragraphs under Section 71 and Section 80 of the Act 1988 has not been complied with. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Regional Transport Authority so as to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on his application for permanent stage carriage in terms of the requirement under second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act 1988 and also keeping in view the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 71 of the Act 1988. 11. The respondent Authority is also expected to take an appropriate decision afresh after hearing the concerned parties to the proceedings including the objectors who had earlier participated in the proceeding and an order be passed within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy this order. 12. With the aforesaid observation/direction, prayer of the petitioner is allowed and writ petition stands disposed of. 13. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay