litaM.UUyKJ VI •IKATTJSOARH: BS i/*H • Mn? '-u?Au3n anitiinajti'^^J J 11 l! S^rf'i IWi^ S^.i >HRI K C.i la ^M?^' . Writ Petiiion No.4245 of 2005 PETIT Smt. Anits Bai, W/o Chain Lai Kasgr, Aged about 47 years, R/o B-57, Kota Coiony, }ur (C.G.) VS;i ReSPONL ;NTS State Transport Appellste Tribunai, C.G., Raipur. r^. ft 3. iionai Transport Authority, ;.G. at Raipur. M/s Nsw Motor Transport Services, Apapura, Durg. Stats of Chhattisgarh Through Transport Secretary, Raipur. PriacA^f • J i 'wfVt 11. . Shri B.K. Rawat, iearned counse! for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Sinsh, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL ORDER (12th September, 2006) Ths resular permlt grantea' to the 3rd respondent on ths route from Takhatpur to Durg has been assailed on iwo grounds in this writ petition, nameiy, (i) the timing assigned to the 3r° respondent and timing assigned to the petltloner are identicai; ano" (ii) formuiation of ths routs from Takhatpur to Durg via Raipur is rwaone. The second around is urgea' for the first time in ihls writ petition. Having perused the order of the STAT, it is seen that such a ground Vv'as not urged before the STAT. The second ground // 2 // is a factual ground and not Isga! and therefors, ths petitioner cannot be permitted to ralse this ground for the first tima in the petition undsr Article 228/227 ofthe Constitution. Thsrefore, what remains is the considsration of the firet ground. !t is stated that the bus of the 3'"" respondent reaches Raipur at 11 .20 A.M. and as oer tEie timing assigned to it, it-ieavss Rsipur to Durg at 11.35 A.M. The petitioner is operatlng his bus from Raipur to Durg and h'.s bus aiso commences joumey ai 11.35 A.M. It is quite often said and reiterated by the Courts that the authorities pass'ng the statutory orders under the Motof Vehicies Act, 1988 shouid keep in mind the interest of the traveiing public in particuiar, while assigning or varying timings. ^ luf. Raipur is a capitai city' of the State of Chhattisgar'n and Durg too Is an important growing citv in the State of Chhattisgarh. Commuters between the two cities ars iarge in ^nk?' I'S' -^ ^^ a^ B^ ^^•l' u^^\ <n</*s?^ ^U/s4 ^^ip^/^rj<"iASy^?^ ^^v^t^r ^iy^n. l-i^u^ ^^^ isy^i. U tJsiiiii^l. US SciiU i.fi^i. yi^^ia^yiiQ QftiV UHS i^US gl particuiar point of tlme wouid meet the needs of the commuters. Therefore, simpiy because in terms of the tirne asslgned to the petitioner and the third rsspondent, their respective buses havs to ieave Ralpur at 11.35 A.SVi., it cannot be said that the decision taken by the statutor/ authority in public interest cannot be faulted with. Furthermore, it nseds to be noticed that ths third resoondent's bus commences journey from Takhatpur, w'nich Is said to be more than 100 Kms away frorn Raipur city. The said sen/ice is essentially meant to meet the needs of traveling pub!ic from Takhatpur to Durg. Even assurning that at Raipur, fe-»v passengers may be t|fiati.-:.< ,,: // 3 // ? E^KS^ ailowed to boara' to go to Durg, that wiil not come in the way of the petitioner opersting his 'ous from Raipur to Durg with the requSred number of passengers. it !s nobody's case that since the fiming assigned to both the buses from Raipur is identlcai and therefore, the bus of the petitioner wou!d not secure ihe requirsd number of passengers going from Raipur to Durg. For aiS these reasons, 1 do not nnd anv merit in this writ Detition warrantins interference with the timings assigned by the statutory authoritles. Writ petitioi's is therefore, dismlsssd. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice <','R '^ i? i \ ^s'^^^t- .,rf Ip