1 2026:CGHC:17524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1633 of 2026 Sanjay Singh S/o. Shri Mata Buksh Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o.- Imlipara, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus The Regional Transport Authority, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 16-4-2 026 1 This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 10-2-2026 and direct the respondent to consider and decide the application of petitioner for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit, in compliance of provision under sub section 2 of the Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the interest of justice. AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.04.20 10:48:02 +0530 2 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in favour of the petitioner, may also be granted." 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10-2-2026 (Annexure P/1) whereby the respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 72 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage permit. It is respectfully submitted that, petitioner had filed application for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage permit on the route from Sarsiva to Bilaspur via Bhatgaon, Bilaigarh, Tundra, Gidhouri, Shivrinarayan, Pamgarh and one trip back through his Bus bearing Registration No.CG-10-G-0759 after depositing Rs.2500/- fees before the respondent, but without complying the mandatory provision under sub-section 2 of Section 80 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, the respondent has rejected application of the petitioner. 3 Learned State counsel opposes the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. 4 Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the record. 5 The challenge to the said order is primarily on the ground that the respondent/Authority has not strictly adhered to the procedure as is otherwise required and laid down under Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 so also have not granted due and fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is required under Section 80 of the aforesaid Act of 1988. 6 From plain perusal of the second proviso of sub-section 2 of Section 80, there is a requirement of the Authorities to first apply his mind in deciding the application under Section 72 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 where the authorities can grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicant concerned for amending the time table if they so want. So that his application and objections can be considered in that regard. 3 7 This exercise perhaps has not been undertaken by the respondent/Authority while passing the impugned order dated 10-2- 2026 (Annexure P/1). The plain perusal of the impugned order also does not reflect that the requirement of the proviso to the sub-section 2 of Section 71 has also a requirement of the proviso under sub-section 2 of the Section 80 having been complied with or adhered to in the process of passing of the impugned order Annexure P/1. 8 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 has not been complied with. 9 For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The issue is remitted back to the Regional Transport Authority so as to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner post refusal of his application for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the requirement under Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 80 and also keeping in view the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 71. 10 Respondent Authority is also expected to take an appropriate decision afresh after hearing the concerned parties to the proceedings including the objectors who had participated in the proceeding at the first instance and an order be passed within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receiving of this order. 11 With the aforesaid observation/direction, prayer of the petitioner is allowed and writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak