\^r: .ar ^-. c W 2HS H3jQa GQORT G£ GaHATTBi^jH AT BlLASpyK iirife PetitAea No.2 ^7-^~/2002. PfiTS.TIONER ^'^^' ,.^^^ *; <y^ ^^ ^:y '>*' RfiSPGNSaSai'ES s M/s M» Gareha B^s ServAc®, ProprletsMC » S(t» Harvia^er Kaur Qarcha, W/o Shri Gttraaee^ Garaha• "aged aboiat 5©years, resAdent ef Qitaajali Nagar, Secter-3, Raipur (C.Q,), V.jB'RiS, y S » i, Stat.e ®iC3ahattis®arh Tlareagh s Secretary, ©epartuent@<£ Trai»s^@rt,j©•K.Bhawaii,RaApyr (G©)» 2» fitegloQal Trans@©rt©ffieer/Tax ©ffAcer,Ra^yr (C,a,)» 3^ ReSfAoBai Traasiiert iBSpeGtoi: (Fly.lQ®Squada) ©fiice@i the R.y.O.. RaApW (G»G,)» WKSS V&'SJSSQSS IINBBR. ARTiefcB 226jJ3I'JI'liB_Gei©TITOT?2i©N ffK.'-SSSXXSA^«.' -.... ..—^-.- .s-. -.. < » • :;.. » - • .. - . •. •. ,. • i^^~^ Np "^^^^ ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR WRIT PETITION No. 2275 of2002 PETITIONER RE8PONDENTS M/s. H.Garcha Bus Service, Raipur. VER8US State ofChhattisgarh & Otfaers. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTmjnON OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agiuhotri, J. Present: Shri Vivek Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Slid Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for tiie State/respondents. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 06m day of October, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioner submits that without affbrding an opportunity of hearing and without constdermg the application dated 09.09.2002 (Annexure P/2), the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (for short 'the RTO'), has directed recovery ofRs. 1,35,369/- vide order dated 21.08.2002 (Annexure p/1). 2. This Court, on 04.08.2003, while granting interim relief, directed the petitioner to fumish a security for the sum ofRs.1,35,000/- to the satisfaction of the Regional Transport Aufhority, within a period ofone month from 04.08.2003. 3. It is infoiTaed at the bar that fhe security ofthe above sum has been fumished withthe RTO, recently. 4. At fhe very outset, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he does not waiit to contest this petition on merits at this stage. However, in view of the fact that tihe petitioner has already famished security in the sum of Rs, 1,35,OOOA, fhe authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner u^ ^ s&' \r" ^ ^ afresh, after affbrding an opportunity of heailng aiid after considermg his objection. 5. Shi'i Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that if the security, as aforestated, has ah'eady been fumished, the respondent aufhorities will look into the matter and after affording an Qpportunity of hearing, pass a fresh order in accordance willi law. 6. In view ofthe Ibregoing, nothing remains for adjudication at this stage and as such, the authorities concemed are directed to consider the case ofthe petitioner and pass appropriate order, as afbrestated, subject to verification oftfae fact that the petitioner has already fumished the security in the sum ofRs. 1,35,000/-. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of No order asto costs. 1 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge