‘ , z IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I’TISGARH : BILASPUR Wn’t Peu‘tion (227) No. 4527 of 2008 ‘ Petitioner i Abdul Salim, Agled about 54 yeam, S/o Shri Abdul Karim, 3 'badi Chowk, Waxd No.88, Raipur, Distt. aipur (C.G.)- . Venus Respondents 1 ) 2. Reg'onal ’I‘mhsport Authority, D.K.S. Bhawan, Rmpur’ Dlstt Ralpur(CG) Secretary Regional Transport Authonty, D KS Bhawan Ralpur, Dlstt. — Ra1pur ! (CG) Sattar Khan S/o Shn Habib Khan Shakur Travels, K K Road Modhapam Raipur, D1stt. Ralpur (C G) State Tmnsport Appellate Tribunal Ralpur, Dlstt. Ralpur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE ‘ CONSTITUTION ‘OF‘ INDIA ‘ (SB: Hon’ble Shn' swish vie :Agnimmi J.) , Shri Ajay Sbn‘vasmva; Advocate {Or the pefiiioner; Shri Alok Bakqhi,_.Govt. Advocatevfor the mspondents No. 1 and 2/ State. ‘Shn‘ J. S. Bajpayee, Advocate for the mspondent.No.3. O R D E 'R (Passed on this 18th Day ofAugust, 2008) r . _ With the consent of learned counsel appearing ,for the paru'es; the matter'is heard many 2. The petitioner ise’challeng'ng the» legality and validity of the older dated 14.7.2008 (Annexum P/ 1), passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal whereby the cases haVe been mmanded to the Reglonal ’I‘xanspon Authority, Raipur to consnier the objection of the peuuoner and pass appxopnate _ order, 1n accordance w1th law 0n perusal of the order dated 1472008 1t appears that the Regonal Transport Authority had not consiim‘ed the objecnon rarsed by the peuuoner for changng the tame: schedule of the bus on the permit granted to the respondent; No 3 The peuuoner has questioned the remand on the ground that the aphcatlons filed earlier are not nacedale p and evcn the court fee required under the pmwisions of law is Rs. IOOO/~ but the respondent No.:3 hgas paid only. Rs. 50/ -, as. Court fees. Be that as it may, the question of farts cannot be oonsidemd t this stage. SinCc the, matter has been. remanded to: the egional Transport Authon'ty, Raipur to consider thr ‘objecu‘on" of thespetitionerand pass appmpriate 01der,:in accordance: With law, there is no perversity or 1mgula1ity in the impugned oxder. The order is just and pmper’anddoes’notmll:for any . interference. In view of the foxegoing, the petitionis dismissed. ., ' Sd/— ‘Satis‘h ‘K. Agnihotri - " Judge ’ i a R