Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Date: 2025.04.23 11:24:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:17144 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2473 of 2022 1 - Anand Roadways Through Its Properiter, Mohd. Anwar Solanki, Aged About 40 Year, S/o Shri Ramjan Solanki, R/o Sorid Nagar, Dhamtari Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ( Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order As R/o Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mahavir Prasad Gupta S/o Late Rameshwarla Gupta Aged About 64 Years Sandha Road, Ward No. 1 Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Manish Travels Through Partner Manish Jain, S/o Bhagchand Jain R/o G.E. Road, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Kanker Roadways Through Partner Narendrapal Singh Garcha S/o Joginder Singh Garcha R/o Civil Lines Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 3603 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi 2 Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (The Petitioner Was Not A Party Before The Learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner In The Instant Petition As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department. ) 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Mahavir Prasad Gupta S/o Late Rameshwar Lal Gupta, Aged About 64 Years R/o Sandha Road, Ward No. 1, Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2 - Anand Roadways, Proprietor Mohammad Solanki, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manish Travells, Through Partner Manish Jain, G.E. Road, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Kanker Roadways, Through Partner, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In WPC No. 2473/2022 For petitioner
Legal Reasoning
:- Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State :- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G. In WPC No. 3603/2022 For petitioner :- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No. 1 :- Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 15.04.2025 1. Since both these petitions are filed against an order dated 3 18.05.2022 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and common question of law are involved in these writ petitions, hence, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. Facts of the case in WPC No.2473/2022 are that the petitioner is carrying passenger transport business on the strength of permit granted by the Transport Authority. The respondent no.3 moved an application for grant of permanent stage carriage on the route Dhamtari to Raipur via Kurud, Abhnapur with two return trip daily before the respondent authorities. While hearing the matter by the RTA Raipur, the petitioner including other objectors i.e respondents no. 4 & 5 raised an objection and particularly since the petitioner is having similar timing as sought by the respondent no.3, his application was rejected. The respondent no.3 filed an Appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur challenging the rejection of his application by the respondent no.2. The learned STAT after calling records from the respondents vide order dated 18.05.2022 allowed the Appeal and directed for issuance of permit in favour of respondent no.3 within a period of 30 days and further directed that the respondent no.3 may be given an opportunity for correction and restrained the respondent no.2 for publishing and hearing the matter a fresh. The petitioner has raised objection before the RTA as well as submitted written arguments before the STAT. The Appellate Tribunal has exceeded jurisdiction by passing impugned order 4 particularly in para 24 (2) of impugned order whereby restrained the RTA from publishing matter in agenda and providing opportunity to the other route operators, which is against the rules of Motor Vehicle. 3. Facts of the case in WPC No.3603/2022 are that the petitioners are instrumentality of State and an establishment under the State of Chhattisgarh looking after the affairs of Department of Transport. The Respondent/applicant submitted an application under Section 72 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for grant of regular Stage Carriage Permit for Passenger Bus No. CG 23 H 6100 (sitting capacity 35+2) [proposed Passenger Bus in hearing CG 05 AJ 7100 Sitting Capacity 45] on interstate route from Dhamtari to Raipur via Kurud, Abhanpur with two return trips per day before the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. After receiving the application as per the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, in the case of the applicant, a meeting of the Authority was convened on 17.12.2019 in which, the other bus operator namely Smt. Shashi Devi of the desired route of the applicant, has raised certain objections. By the notification dated 24.12.2019, published in Chhattisgarh Gazette, for entire State, the application of the applicant was published on 27.06.2020 and notices were issued to the concerned in which, no objection was received. Thereafter, in the case of new permanent license permission, a hearing was conducted on 09.07.2020 and the relevant parties/objectors including the present applicant were 5 heard in accordance with law. In the meeting dated 09.07.2020, the present respondent applicant Mahavir Prasad Gupta appeared before the authority stating that, he has proposed his own vehicle passenger bus No. CG 23 H 6100 sitting capacity 35+2 model 2019 and no dues is outstanding on the said vehicle and no case regarding Section 86 is pending. The vehicle of the applicant on Permit No. 112/2005 is being operated since last 12 years in the said proposed time cycle. The first objector M/s. Kanker Roadway has objected in its written objection that, the applicant/respondent no. 1 has proposed the departure time from Raipur 12:35 1.e. 5 minutes prior to the time cycle for departure from Raipur 12:40, which is in the sanctioned Permit No. 607/B/16 route Raipur To Jagdalpur of the objector Kanker Roadways and similarly, the applicant has proposed departure time from Dhamtari 14:35 i.e. 6 minutes prior to the time cycle for departure from Dhamtari 14:41, which is in the sanctioned permit No. 778/BTR/18 route Raipur to Sukma of the objector Kanker Roadways. The second objector Manish Travels has also objected in its written objection that, the applicant has proposed the departure time from Raipur 16:50 i.e. 5 minutes after to the time cycle for departure from Raipur 16:45, which is in the sanctioned Permit No. 638/BTR/16 of route Raipur to Bailadila of the objector. It is also objected that, in the said time cycle, Rule 70-B has not been complied with. The third objector Anand Roadways has also objected in its written objection that, the 6 applicant respondent no. 1 has proposed the same time cycle similar to the time cycle of the objector in all four trips and in the said route, no vehicle is being operated in the same time cycle, which is a fight-full and crossing time cycle and the proposed vehicle is also not in spare. It is also objected that, the Rule 70-B and Section 112 of the Act, have also not been complied with. 4. Thereafter, the matter was taken into consideration and after considering all the aspects of the matter and the documents submitted by the other operators, no demand letter has been presented by the passengers of the route for transport facility on the said route, therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant permission to the applicant. After considering the case of the present respondent on merit and submissions made by the existing route bus operators, the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur has rejected the application preferred by the present respondent for grant of regular stage carriage permit. While passing the impugned order by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the situations that, no such demand letter has also been presented by the passengers of the route for transport facility on the said route, therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 is untenable and bad in law. Hence, the above two petitions. 5. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in both the petitions, however, in sum and 7 substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPC No.2473/2022 (Anand Roadways vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) is taken into consideration which are quoted hereinbelow:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the STAT Raipur in appeal no. A-01/2021 between Mahavir Prasad Gupta Vs. RTA & others. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in both the petitions, the private respondents as well as the State authorities are aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) by which the learned STAT has remitted back the matter while setting-aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) while directing the RTA to consider the case of the petitioner under Section 71(2) read with proviso to Section 80(2) and Rule 70-B of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules,1994 and to come in respect of amendment in the time slot for plying bus of the transporters in the proposed regional roads within 30 days and to issue permit within 30 days and the compliance of the same shall be sent to learned STAT. 8 He submits that it was further directed that while considering the application of the petitioner, the objections of the respective parties/objectors or any other may be heard again / again and again. 7. The private respondents as well as the State authorities while filing these petitions are not aggrieved by the remand order, whereas they are being aggrieved by the order by which the learned STAT has directed the concerned RTA to call objections again and again and to pass necessary orders. It has been submitted by counsel for the private respondents as well as State counsel that it is practically difficult to hear the objections again and again and if the parties will be heard one after another or again and again, no permit would be passed and it will be a futile exercise because there will be no end of hearing objections. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submissions put forth before me and have also gone through the
Decision
documents appended to both the writ petitions. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that though only one transporter has preferred this petition and the State has also come up with this petition while raising similar ground in both of these petitions while considering the remand order. From perusal of the order passed by the learned STAT in which while remanding the matter back and hearing the matter in accordance with Section 71(2) read with proviso to Section 80(2) and Rule 70-B of the C.G. Motor Vehicle Rules,1994, it has been 9 specifically stated that the objectors will be heard again and again which is practically impossible. If the said practice would continue, then no permit could be granted. 10. As such, this Court hereby set-aside the para 24(2) of the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the learned STAT by which the objections were directed to be heard again and again and instead of that, this Court directs the objectors as well as the concerned transporters to file objection and after filing all their objections, and after receiving all the objections, the concerned RTA is directed to consider and hear all the objections made and thereafter to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. 11. For redressal of their respective grievance, it is directed that all the parties who are present before this Court and the other parties, shall appear before the concerned RTA on 06.05.2025 while filing/raising their objections on that date. Then, the concerned RTA is directed to call all the objections for a further period of 7 days and, thereafter, it shall decide the application of the petitioner for grant of permit on or before 20.05.2025. 12. With the aforesaid direction/observation, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha