Judgment · High Court

Anwar Ali, Aged about 40 years S/o Shri Sayed Ahemed Ali, R/o Mauohadapara, Raipur (C.G.) Vereus

Transport Appellate Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur The State Trubunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Viabho Shanker Mishra Jai Hanuman Travelles, Devpuri, Raipur Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocatefor the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20th April, 2000) If 1 may say so, the dispute brought before the Court is rooted on technicalities if not for hyper technicalities. Above all, 1 do not flnd any legal injury to the interest of the petitioner by the impugned acUon. The facts ofthe case, in brief, are as follows: The 3 respondent applied for regutar permit for the route Raipur to Dhamtari on 07-06-2005, subsequendy, he moved an application for amendment and sought the permit for the route Raipur to Rudri. The licensing authority, Respondent No. 1, having entertained those applications, ultimately grantedpermits to the 3 respondent for the route Raipur to Rudri. That action has been assaited in this writ petition on the ground that the 1$t respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur did not insist from the 3 respondent to comply with the provisions of Section 83 of the ^cS •a- Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The records before the Court would show that there was compliance of the above provision in the subsance a technical depariure in the procedure followed by the 1rt respondent granting permit in fayor of the 3"1 respondent is not vitiated factor, be that as it may, 1 am at a loss to underetand that the petitioner te prejudiced by that action. The counsel was not in a position to polnt out how he would prejudice by the above action of the 1st respondent. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. __ Sd/- Chief Justice fW\.A. ^^sf^S£!'^*t'^':'s'!essBssyss6ssssssses9^s^gS^^^^^^^^^