HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA LASPUR W’P.[c] No.5768 'of 2009 (Pefiiion under Article 226 cf fhe Consti’ru?ion of India) PETITEONEI'E Kusum 3m Jagne, W/‘o Shri PR Jayne, Aged N‘A. No.3 cbou‘r 60 years, R/o Sadar Road, Nayapam, Rajim, Dis‘rric‘r Raipur (C6) RESPONDENTS 1. Sfafe of Chhaf‘risgarh, Through— fhe Secrefary, Minisfr‘y of Road Transport Au‘rhorETyA D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur‘ (66) 2. Road Tmnspor'i' Au'fhori'i’y, Chharr‘isgur'h Raipur {(757) 3. Kamaijee‘i Singh, S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Pandri Raipur' Through: Ajay 5inghi Power of A‘Horney- Revisioner Presenf: yMr. V.C. Sharma. Advocm‘e for fhe pei'ifioner. Mr. 3 Thakur, Panei Lawyer for The Sfafei Mr. Raja Sharma, Advoca‘l'e appears on caveat on behalf of responden'i' No.3 Vs Per Dhérenéra Mishra. 3’: 1. ORDER (Passed on 21.10‘200$) The pei’ifioner by fhe ins‘fan? pefifion under ArTicie 226 of Consfi‘i’u‘rion of Iodia has prayed for quashing of The order da'red 6.7.2069 (Annexure P-1) passed by responden‘r No.1 and has fur'fher' prayed To direcf responden? No.1 To issue permanem‘ s‘mge carriage permif in accordance wifh ’rhe ‘rime scheduie of i’empomry sfage carriage permif (Annexure P-2) issued 1'0 1’he pe‘rh‘ioner. The pe‘rh‘ioner and 'l'he responden‘f No.3 are bus opera‘fors. Pefifioner appiied for Dermanen‘r . s‘raae .. carriage nermi‘i . on Raipur‘Dham'rari route for Two refurn irips per day. Respondem’ No.2 vide order dafed 11.4.2008 granied permanem' s‘iage carriage permi‘l' (Annexure P-4) of daily fwo single Trips, however, conTrary To The order passed by respondenT No.2,. sTage carriage permiT for fwo refurn ‘rrips per day was issued 1'0 The pe‘iii’ioner. The Sia‘i‘e Transpor‘l' Appella‘re Tribunal (for shor'i' ‘Tribunal'i considering fhe above facT and also considerina Thai ‘no obiec‘iion ceriific‘ajie' réaardina no arrears of fax aaains‘!‘ .. u .i c. .. fhe pefi’rioner has no? been produced before the Regionai Transporf AuThori‘ry (RT/1} and The order granting permi’r aiso do'es no? men‘rion fha'r fhere is no arrears of fax agains'f fhe pefh‘ioner. whereas. arrears of Rs.27.000/- ‘l'owards 'i'ax was balance againsf 'l'he pe‘fifioner, cancelled The permii issued in favour of fhe pei'ifioner. R I . Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for The peTiTioner submiTs ThaT The Tribunal has passed The impugned order wiThouT considering The fac‘i' fha‘r The paifioner‘ was plying vehicle in The above roufe since Iasf four mon‘rhs on fhe basis of Temporary smge carriage permi'r issued in her favour. Though in The eariier par‘r of ifs order fhe RTA has inadverfenfly men'i‘ioned Two singie frips éaiiy buf in fhe concluding par? i‘r has been specificoiiy menfioned The? Time scheduie of The passenger vehicle shall be in accordance wiTh The Temnorarv permiT on . , The basis of which The peTiTioner was plying his passenger vehicle for The lasT four monThs and only on The aforesaid basis permiT was issued To The peTiTioner. He furTher argued ThaT The peTiTioner has already paid enTire arrears of Rs.12,800/- Towards Tax on 7.8.2008 vide Annexure P—6. Arrears could noT be paid before The permanenT permiT was granTed To her as The same was never broughT To her noTice by The TransporT Depari'menf. . On The oTher hand, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for The STaTe as also Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondenT No.3 argued ThaT permanenT permiT issued To The peTiTioner is in variance of The order passed by The Regional TransporT‘AuThoriTy. According To The peTiTioner's own admission on 11.4.2006 she was defaulTer on The daTe of issuance of permiT as she cleared The dues only on 7.8.2008. The peTiTioher herself applied for permiT for single Trip in The above rouTe; whereas; she was granTed permiT for Two reTurn Trips daily; which is highly improbable. . I have heard learned counsel for The peTiTioner. . Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, having regard To The reasons assigned by The Tribunal; considering ThaT The peTiTioner did noT produce ‘no objecTion cerTificaTe' wiTh regard To The paymenT of Tax while applying for permanenT sTage carriage permiT and also considering ThaT oTher pbjecTions as menTioned in The impugned order: I am of The opinion ThaT no excepTion could be Taken To The impugned order of The Tribunal. The wriT peTiTion is devoid of meriT and iT is accordingly dismissed. . No order as To cosTs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra r Roshan/— r ‘1 Judge