Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4010 of 2022 1 - Abdul Shamim S/o Shri Abdul Salim Aged About 38 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Kali Badi Chowk, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4025 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
1 - Abdul Shamim S/o Shri Abdul Salim Aged About 38 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Kali Badi Chowk, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4388 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1 - Abdul Shamim S/o Shri Abdul Salim Aged About 38 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar, Kali Badi Chowk, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4419 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ...........Resp. No. 1. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Abdul Shamim S/o Shri Abdul Salim Aged About 38 Years R/o Gandhi Nagar Kali Badi Chowk, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. .......Appellant. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner (In W.P.C. No. 4010 of 2022 and W.P.C. No. 4025 of 2022) : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 07/05/2025 Order on Board 1.
Decision
The contents and factual matrix involved in all the writ petitions would revel that the bone of contention in them is one and the same, as such, all these writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Writ petition No. 4010 of 2022 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issues involved in this matter. The petitioner in the said writ petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the permit bearing no. 1388/RPR/2015 in the name of petitioner in 3 compliance of order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the STAT Raipur (C.G.) forthwith. 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” 3. The petitioner, engaged in the passenger transport business under a valid permit, applied for the transfer of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit No. 1388/RPR/2015 belonging to M/s New Jeevan Bus Service for operating a daily single trip on the Raipur to Jashpur route via Kharora, Balodabazar, Bilaigarh, and Koria. However, respondent No. 2 dismissed the application on 19.02.2021 without issuing a speaking order and in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Raipur, which allowed the appeal on 20.10.2021 and directed the authorities to complete the transfer process within 30 days. Despite the clear direction, no order has been passed even after nearly a year. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has willfully failed to discharge its statutory duty by not complying with the well-reasoned order dated 20.10.2021 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which directed issuance of the permit within a period of 30 days. Despite the lapse of over 11 months, no steps have been taken, reflecting clear disobedience and disregard for the binding directions of the appellate authority. It is further submitted that in similar cases, the respondents have complied with such orders after being directed by this Hon’ble Court, yet in the case of petitioner, the 4 non-compliance appears deliberate and mala fide. The petitioner has suffered substantial financial loss due to the non-issuance of the permit, while the State has also been deprived of revenue. The counsel prays that this Hon’ble Court may intervene and issue appropriate writ or direction to ensure enforcement of the order of appellate tribunal and uphold the rule of law. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the respondents have no intention to act in defiance of the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) dated 20.10.2021. It is contended that any delay in compliance was neither deliberate nor mala fide but occurred due to administrative and procedural reasons. The State Counsel further submits that the authorities are bound by statutory procedures and necessary verifications, which may have caused the delay. However, in view of the directions issued by the learned Tribunal and the observations made by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents are willing to comply with the said order in its true spirit. It is assured that appropriate steps shall be taken expeditiously to issue the requisite permit to the petitioner as per law. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider the circumstances and not pass any adverse orders against the respondents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 7. Consideirng facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the fact that non-compliance of the order of STAT is inexcusable and has caused undue hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court directs respondent No. 2 to comply with the order of the STAT dated 5 20.10.2021 and issue the permit to the petitioner within 15 days from the date this order is communicated if it has not been decided yet, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Shayna Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE