The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 W.P.(C) No. 33342 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Harakrushna Samanta State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack & Ors. -versus- …. …. Petitioner(s) Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Goutam Mishra, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. J.R. Deo, Adv. Mr. Subir Palit, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Pravakar Behera, Standing Counsel for Transport Department CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-07.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-11.04.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the decision of the State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack, in rejecting his application for grant of a Permanent Permit on the route from Mundibeda to Jeypore, on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of submission of the application. Page 1 of 18 2. The petitioner further assails the said decision as illegal and arbitrary, contending that the grant of the permanent permit in favour of Opposite Party No. 4 is unjustified and without due consideration of relevant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 facts. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The route from Mundibeda to Jeypore and back was advertised on the official website of the Odisha Motor Vehicle Department, as well as in the Odia daily ‘The Samaj’ dated 09.10.2024 and the English daily ‘The Times of India‘dated 22.10.2024, inviting applications from intending operators for the grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permits on various routes. The last date for receipt of applications was fixed as 25.10.2024. (ii) Upon coming across the advertisement dated 22.10.2024, the petitioner, with an intent to operate passenger transport services on the said route, purchased a brand-new vehicle on 25.10.2024 and reserved registration number OD-15AB-4545 by paying the requisite fee of ₹10,000/-. (iii) The petitioner deposited the Motor Vehicle Tax through the dealer and obtained both the Fitness Certificate and Insurance Certificate in respect of the said vehicle. However, the registration process could not be completed on the same day due to some technical issues in the Vahan- IV portal maintained by the Government of India. (iv) Despite the above, the petitioner submitted an application for grant of Permanent Permit in respect of the said vehicle which intended to be registered as OD-15AB-4545. Page 2 of 18 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 (v) On 29.10.2024, Opposite Party No. 2 issued a notice informing all applicants and objectors that the applications would be placed before the State Transport Authority for hearing on 05.11.2024. All the concerned parties were accordingly invited to attend the virtual hearing. (vi) During the hearing held on 05.11.2024, the applications of both the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 4 were taken up for consideration. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle proposed by the petitioner was of a more recent manufacturing than that of Opposite Party No. 4 and, therefore, the petitioner had a superior claim on merits. (vii) However, the State Transport Authority proceeded to reject the petitioner’s application on the ground that the vehicle had not been registered at the time of submission of the application. This decision was recorded under Item No.33 of the meeting held on 05.11.2024, the proceedings of which were published on the State Transport Authority’s official website on 27.12.2024. (viii) Following the rejection, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to Opposite Party No. 3, requesting reconsideration of his application on its merits. It was clarified that the vehicle was duly registered on 30.10.2024, just five days after the application was submitted. The delay in registration occurred solely due to the technical issues with the Vahan portal. Notably, the vehicle had already been insured and the Motor Vehicle Tax was deposited on the date of purchase itself. Page 3 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 (ix) Aggrieved by the arbitrary and unjust decision of the State Transport Authority, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner submits that the impugned decision of the State Transport Authority, in rejecting his application, is contrary to the legislative intent underlying the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder namely, Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. The Opposite Party No. 1, being a statutory authority discharging quasi- judicial functions, was under an obligation to act fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with law. The rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of submission reflects gross non-application of mind which is arbitrary, and is wholly unsustainable in law. (ii) The petitioner further submitted that Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 governs the procedure for making an application for the grant of a Stage Carriage Permit. The said provision stipulates that an application shall, as far as may be, contain the particulars mentioned under clauses (a) to (f). However, it is submitted that there is no requirement under this provision mandating the production of a Registration Certificate at the time of filing the application. Therefore, Page 4 of 18 the rejection of the petitioner’s application on such a flimsy ground is dehors the statutory framework and is legally untenable. (iii) The petitioner further relied on Rule 45 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Rules, 1993, which prescribes the forms in which applications for permits are to be made. According to the said Rule, an application for a Stage Carriage Permit is to be submitted in Form XV. A bare perusal of Form XV makes it evident that submission of motor vehicle documents, including the Registration Certificate, is not mandated at the time of making the application. Clause 14 of the said Form merely requires a declaration by the applicant regarding the possession of the vehicle, and stipulates that if the vehicle is already owned, the Registration Certificate may be furnished. It further provides that in cases where the applicant has not yet taken possession of the vehicle, the Registration Certificate may be submitted at the time of issuance of the permit. Hence, rejection of the petitioner’s application on the ground of non- registration at the time of application is not in consonance with the statutory scheme. (iv) The petitioner also placed reliance on Rule 87 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which expressly provides that where the applicant does not possess the registration mark of the vehicle at the time of making the application, he shall produce the Registration Certificate within one month from the date of sanction of the application. This provision, by necessary implication, contemplates a situation where an applicant may apply for a permit even before the registration of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that rejection of his Page 5 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 application solely on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of application is legally unsustainable and contrary to the statutory scheme. (v) From a conjoint reading of the aforementioned provisions, it is evident that there exists no mandatory requirement for the applicant to furnish the particulars of the vehicle, including the Registration Certificate, at the stage of applying for a Stage Carriage Permit. Accordingly, it is submitted that an application cannot be treated as invalid merely on account of non-submission of such particulars. Similarly, disqualifying or superseding an applicant on such basis, when neither the statute nor do the rules prescribe it as mandatory, is wholly arbitrary and without jurisdiction. (vi) The petitioner submitted that he had complied with all requisite formalities under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. Although the Registration Certificate could not be submitted at the time of application due to technical issues with the Vahan portal, the same was obtained well in advance of the date of consideration and made available thereafter. In view of such substantive compliance, rejection of the petitioner’s application on a mere technical ground is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the object and spirit of the law. (vii) The petitioner submitted that neither the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nor does the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 prescribe that an application for grant of a Permanent Permit must necessarily pertain to a vehicle that is already registered. In this context, reference was made Page 6 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 to Rule 84 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, which prescribes that an application for permit shall be accompanied by documents such as the Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, and Insurance Certificate, where applicable. However, it is submitted that the impugned advertisement did not mandate submission of these documents at the stage of application. The petitioner’s application had been duly accepted and placed before the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on 5 November 2024. Thus, rejection of the application on this technical ground is devoid of legal basis. (viii) Further, the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question was duly registered by the Registering Authority, Sambalpur on 30 October 2024. It is pertinent to note that on the date of consideration of the application, namely, 5 November 2024, the vehicle stood registered in accordance with law. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of submission is erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled legal position. The petitioner submitted that once the vehicle had been registered prior to the date of consideration, rejection of the application on such a hyper- technical ground is wholly unjustified. (ix) The petitioner further contended that the Supreme Court of India as well as this Court have consistently held that the relevant date for assessing possession of the requisite documents, such as the Registration Certificate, is the date of consideration of the application and not the date of submission. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner’s vehicle was duly registered on 30 October Page 7 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 2024, prior to the date of consideration, i.e., 5 November 2024. Therefore, the petitioner ought not to have been disqualified from consideration for the grant of Permanent Permit merely on the ground that the registration was pending at the time of submission. (x) The petitioner further submitted that the Opposite Party Authority failed to consider the petitioner’s application on its merits, and instead proceeded to grant the Permanent Permit in favor of Opposite Party No. 4, in clear contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Odisha Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. The said action is arbitrary, unjust, and violative of the settled principles of law governing the grant of stage carriage permits. (xi) The petitioner also submitted that during the 303rd meeting of the State Transport Authority held on 5 November 2024, it was specifically resolved that in the event of a tie between applicants, preference shall be given to the vehicle having a later date of registration. In light of this decision, the petitioner’s application ought to have been considered favourably, since the vehicle proposed by the petitioner bore a later date of registration. The decision taken in the petitioner’s case is therefore arbitrary and in violation of the principle expressly adopted by the Authority. The petitioner further reiterated that the resolution adopted in the 295th meeting of the State Transport Authority also supports this view and is applicable in the present context. The principle that was applied in respect of item number 29 in the meeting dated 5 November 2024 ought to have been applied equally to item number 33. The petitioner submitted that his vehicle had been duly evaluated, marks Page 8 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 was awarded, and resulted in a tie. Therefore, his application ought not to have been summarily rejected. On the date of consideration, the petitioner possessed all valid and requisite documents and was therefore entitled to equal and fair treatment under law. (xii) In light of the foregoing submissions, the petitioner prayed that this Court may be pleased to quash the decision dated 5 November 2024, insofar as it relates to the grant of the Permanent Permit on the route Mundibeda to Jeypore and back under item number 33. The petitioner further prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party No. 1 to consider his application afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) An advertisement dated 17.10.2024 clearly required submission of the prescribed application form by the registered owner, along with the application fee receipt, self-attested copies of the Registration Certificate, valid Fitness and Insurance Certificates, tax details, a solvency certificate or bank guarantee of ₹99,000/- valid for one year, and self-declarations. It was also clearly stated that incomplete applications, delayed submissions, or those containing false or suppressed information would be summarily rejected. (ii) Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 outlines the requirements for an application for a stage carriage permit. It mandates that the application must specify the route, type and seating capacity of the vehicle, proposed number of trips along with a timetable, reserve Page 9 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 vehicles, maintenance arrangements, and other prescribed particulars. Sub-section (2) further provides that such applications must be accompanied by documents as may be prescribed under the Rules. Sub- section (32) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the term "prescribed" to mean prescribed by the Rules made under the Act. (iii) Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the State Government to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of Chapter V, which pertains to the control of transport vehicles. In exercise of this power, the State of Odisha has enacted the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. Rule 45 of the said Rules prescribes the form of application for permits, while Rule 84 governs the manner of making such applications and the receipt thereof. Sub-Rules (2) and (3) of Rule 84 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 mandate that every application, subject to Rule 87, must include all required particulars, including the correct permanent address of the applicant, and must be accompanied by necessary motor vehicle documents such as the Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate, Insurance Certificate (where applicable), and a tax clearance certificate. Additionally, incomplete applications may not be taken up for consideration. (iv) In view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it is a mandatory requirement that an application for a stage carriage permit must be submitted in the prescribed form along with the requisite documents as stipulated under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 84 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993. Pursuant to these provisions, the advertisement dated 21.10.2024 set the final date for submission of applications as 25.10.2024. Page 10 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 The petitioner, however, submitted an application quoting a vehicle registration number—OD-15AB-4545—even though the said vehicle had not been registered as on the date of application. It is pertinent to note that the number was merely reserved for future allotment at the time of registration, and therefore, the petitioner failed to furnish a valid Registration Certificate as mandated under Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 84(2) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules. In such circumstances, the State Transport Authority, Odisha rightly declined to consider the petitioner’s application during the evaluation process for grant of the Permanent Permit on the Mundibeda–Jeypore route. (v) While submitting the application for grant of permanent stage carriage permit in Form-XV, as prescribed under Rule 45(1) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, the petitioner, in Sl. No. 14, specifically declared that he was in possession of the vehicle and that the Certificate of Registration was enclosed. However, the factual position reveals that as on 25.10.2024, the last date for submission, the petitioner’s vehicle was not registered, and no Certificate of Registration had been issued in his favour. The declaration made in Clause 14 of the application form was thus incorrect and misleading. Accordingly, the State Transport Authority, Odisha, while assessing the comparative merits of the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4, rightfully declined to consider the petitioner’s application, as it failed to meet the essential requirement of vehicle registration as on the date of application. Page 11 of 18 (vi) The rule of preference lies within the discretionary domain of the State Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Transport Authority, Odisha. Where all other factors remain equal, the Authority is well within its rights to prefer an applicant who has submitted a complete application in compliance with all mandatory legal requirements over one who has failed to do so. In the present case, the State Transport Authority, Odisha has acted justifiably and in accordance with law in granting the permit in favour of Opposite Party No.4, keeping in view the interest of the travelling public. In the present case, the State Transport Authority, Odisha has taken a conscious and well-reasoned decision strictly in accordance with law and within the bounds of its jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the Authority has exceeded its legal limits in preferring Opposite Party No.4, who has kept his vehicle idle since April 2024 specifically for the purpose of operating on the said route. (vii) The scope of writ jurisdiction in interfering with the decision of a quasi- judicial authority is narrow and limited. Unless there is a manifest error of law or the authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction, the Writ Court cannot invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with this kind of matter. (viii) The petitioner’s reliance on a prior instance is misconceived. In that case, both applicants had duly registered their vehicles before the cutoff date, and permits were granted based on comparative dates of registration. In contrast, the petitioner’s vehicle was unregistered at the time of application, and no Registration Certificate was submitted. Hence, no parity arises. The decision to grant the permit to Opposite Page 12 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 Party No. 4, who had kept his vehicle idle since April 2024 and was earlier denied a temporary permit, is lawful, reasoned, and in public interest.
Legal Reasoning
6. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No. 4 earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Opposite Party No.3, vide Notification dated 17.10.2024, invited applications for permanent permits on the Mundibeda–Jeypore route, with the last date initially fixed as 21.10.2024. Pursuant thereto, Opposite Party No.4 submitted his application on 21.10.2024 for his vehicle bearing registration number OD-10Z-2205. Subsequently, by Notification dated 21.10.2024, the last date was extended to 25.10.2024. Taking advantage of the extension, the petitioner purchased a new vehicle on 25.10.2024 and submitted an application quoting the reserved registration number OD-15AB-4545. (ii) The petitioner submitted his application on 25.10.2024 pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.10.2024, citing a newly purchased vehicle which, at the time, was neither registered nor supported by a valid Registration Certificate. (iii) In the meeting held on 05.11.2024, applications of both the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 were considered after affording due opportunity of hearing. Despite both candidates having secured equal marks, the State Transport Authority, Odisha, rejected the petitioner’s application on merits. (iv) Both the petitioner and Opposite Party No.4 possess vehicles of the same model, equally capable of providing comparable comfort and Page 13 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 service to the travelling public, thereby securing 65 marks each in the evaluation process. Hence, both stood on an equal footing. However, the competent authority rightly exercised its discretion in preferring Opposite Party No.4, taking into account the fact that his vehicle had remained idle since April 2024 in anticipation of the route being advertised, and that his earlier application for a temporary permit was not entertained due to the route being reserved for permanent permit notification. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 7. Heard Learned Counsels for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 8. The present writ petition pertains to a dispute regarding the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route from Mundibeda to Jeypore and back, pursuant to notifications issued by Opposite Party No.3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the State Transport Authority, Odisha, whereby the application of Opposite Party No.4 was preferred over that of the petitioner. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that no individual holds a vested right to the grant of a stage carriage permit merely by satisfying the statutory requirements. The grant of such a permit is not a matter of entitlement but lies within the discretionary domain of the competent transport authority, which must assess and balance various relevant considerations in accordance with law while exercising such discretion. 10. The Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, while exercising powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, function Page 14 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 as administrative bodies discharging quasi-judicial duties in matters concerning the grant of permits. 11. The Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd.1 has observed the following in this regard: “The Motor Vehicles Act is a statute which creates new rights and liabilities and prescribes an elaborate procedure for their regulation. No one is entitled to a permit as of right even if he satisfies all the prescribed conditions. The grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion of the transport authorities and naturally depends on several circumstances which have to be taken into account. The Regional Transport Authority and the Provincial Transport Authority are entrusted under Section 42 with this power. They may be described as administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions in the matter of the grant of permits.” 12. While such discretion vests with the transport authorities, it is equally well-settled that a denial of permit must be based on cogent, justifiable, and reasonable grounds. Any decision tainted by arbitrariness or illegality is subject to judicial scrutiny. 13. The scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder reveals that the legislation is a self-contained code. Disputes arising within its ambit are to be resolved through the statutory mechanisms prescribed therein. Even where a decision appears erroneous on merits, this Court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the competent authority, unless the impugned decision is 1 (1952) 1 SCC 334 Page 15 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 demonstrably arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or in violation of the principles of natural justice. 14. Moreover, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, though wide, is supervisory and not appellate. This Court cannot reappreciate the merits of a decision taken by a statutory authority acting within its jurisdiction, unless such decision is vitiated by gross irregularity, perversity, or manifest illegality. 15. Therefore, the limited question that arises for consideration is whether the decision of the State Transport Authority, Odisha, in preferring the application of Opposite Party No.4 over that of the petitioner suffers from any manifest arbitrariness, illegality, or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution 16. In the present case, the material facts are not in dispute. Opposite Party No.3 issued a notification dated 17.10.2024 inviting applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits. The last date for submission of applications was initially fixed as 21.10.2024. Opposite Party No.4 submitted his application on the said date along with all requisite documents, including the Registration Certificate of his vehicle. Subsequently, by notification dated 21.10.2024, the deadline was extended to 25.10.2024. 17. The petitioner, having purchased the vehicle on the extended last date of 25.10.2024, submitted his application with only a reserved registration number. Crucially, as on that date, the vehicle was not registered, nor were essential documents like the Registration Certificate and Fitness Certificate furnished. The petitioner attributes Page 16 of 18 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 this to technical issues on the Vahan-IV portal. However, this explanation does not address the legal requirement of possessing a valid Registration Certificate at the time of application. The absence of such a certificate renders the application incomplete and non-compliant with the mandatory statutory conditions for consideration. 18. Moreover, a perusal of the records indicates that in the meeting of the State Transport Authority on 05.11.2024, both the petitioner’s and Opposite Party No.4’s applications were considered and awarded equal marks. However, the Authority, in the exercise of its discretion, preferred Opposite Party No.4, whose application met all statutory and procedural requirements. Notably, Opposite Party No.4 had kept his vehicle idle since April 2024 in anticipation of obtaining a permit, demonstrating preparedness and bona fides. On the other hand, the petitioner’s application was deficient, lacking mandatory documents such as the Registration Certificate, thereby rendering it ineligible under the applicable legal framework. 19. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds no trace of arbitrariness, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The authority has applied its mind and recorded cogent reasons for preferring Opposite Party No.4 over the petitioner. V. CONCLUSION: 20. In light of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merit. 21. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Page 17 of 18 impugned decision of the State Transport Authority, Odisha, Cuttack having been taken in accordance with law and upon due adherence to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Apr-2025 16:40:34 the principles of natural justice, warrants no interference. 22. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11th April, 2025/ Page 18 of 18