t9)^ ^s^s^--" .1^^ SINSIE RCTH C- ,t' CT THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPVR W.P; No '.LS ^ /2006 Petitioner Respondents Yakub Sarif, S/o Late Ebrahim Sarif . aged about 63 years, R/o Kelabadi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : ,1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur (C.G.) / 2. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 'tfl -.••r's*"n' -sf\]y- 'co^ \^ ^}^ ^^ y 3. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur / 4. Shri Raju Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri K. S. Rajpurohit R/o Mahoba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) • A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. t-. If' HIOHCOU8T Cff .iUBICATURE CHHAniSQARH: BILASPUR SlNOLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK. CJ PETmQNER WritPettt!onNQ,2S7QF200S Yakub Sarif, RESPQNDENTS Si'o Lsts Ebrshim Sarif Aged aoout 63 years. R/& Ketebadi, DssS. Durg (C.Q.) yjRsys 1. Stets Transport Appellate Tribuna) Raipur (C.G.) 2. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Secretary, Regionai Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur 4. Shri Rsju Singh Rajpui'ohit S/o Shri K.8. Raiourohit R,'o Mahoba Bazar, Rsipw (C.S.) Present: Shri A.R. Shrivastava. learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Ssp.gh, !sar".sd Q.A. and Shri Sume&h Bajaj, leamed Dy. G.A. for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Ajay Shrivastava and Shri Shivesh Singh, teamed Counssi for rsspondsnt No. 4. ORALQRDER [Pass&d ors 1 F&brusry 2808} The facts of this case are simpte and straightforward. The psSiti&Rsr mads an appiisatisn on Q3-Q3-2fX)4 to the 2 rsspondent fw grant of rsguiar psmiit on fts route Durg to Rsipur. The 4U> re^onderit herein too made an application on 17-05-2004 for grantof regular permit sn Shs sams route. The 2 respondent by his order datsd 08-07-2004 granted the psnTi.'t in favour of the 4th rsspondent. Ths petitioRer bsing aggrisyed by ths abovs order of fha 2 respondsnt has ffled thte writ petition. 'T t^-^ ^r'- / ~J/_ 2-- (2) On service of noUce, respondents 2 and 3 have flled their refcirn. In the retum, it is stated ftat the applicatton filed by Vne peUtioner was teken-up for CQnsideration on 16-03-2004 and atter coreideratiQn, his apptication was rejected, but, the file where the applrcaUon of the petitioner was considsred and dscision taken, is not produced before the Court. It is stated by the respondente 2 and 3 ftat the sald flle was tost / misplaced. Not only the concemed ffle is not produced before the Gourt, but, st is an admfttsd fact that the 2 respondent did not sve" communicate his socafled order dated 16-03-2(XM to the petitfoner till date. It is ttie specific case of Uie petitioner Ihat his application is not yet considered. The fact that the petitioner had made an applicatton on 03-03-2004 for grant of regular psrmit on the aforementioned route is not disputed before me. !t is well settled that if a statutory authority receives more than one application for parting largesse of ttie State or for grant of permit, licence ete., equiteble principles which flow from Artide 14 postulates would mandats such statutory authority to club all such riva! applications, cohsider them together and dispose of them by a common order in ordsr to ensure faimess in consideration and also in order to appreciate relative merits of the applicants togethsr and to part with targesse of the State to a most suitabte person amongst the applicants to subserve the public interest. Since the petitioner made appiicatlo". ws'! befors the 4 rs^sondsnt made appUcatson for grant of regutar permit on the same route, in terms of priority as well as seniority, ttie petitioner's application should have been considered and decided eariier or atleast it shouid have bsen clubbed with the application of ttie 4 rsspondeRt. Ths seSf-ssrv'lng sSatsfnsnt sf rsspsndsnte 2 and 3 to <^:. - s i'. suit their convenience and to raise an excuse to cover up an apparent •Itegal act on their part does not inspire confidence of the Court. 'JusBce should be done and at the same time that is seen to have been done' is a cardinal rute of principles of natural justice. In thatview ofthe matter, 1 think, the snds of jusScs would be met by dirscUng ths 2nd respondent to ctub e applieation of the petitioner wiUi that of 4 respondent, consider them together and pass appropriate commonorder on merit, strietly in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties and 1 th'nk, that is the only fair way of doing justice in a matter like ftis. (3) In the result, 1 allow the writ petition, quash ttie order of the 2nd respondsnt dstsd 06-07-2004 granfing regutar permit in fevour of the 4th respondant on ths routs Durg to Raipur. A direction shall issue to the 2 respondent to club ths application of the petttioner dated 03-03-2004 with that of ttie 4th respondent dated 17-05-2Q04,consider them togettier and pass appropriate orders, in accordance witti law after giving them-opportunity of being heard, within a period of 15 days from thedateofreceiptofacopyofthisorder. Nocoste. ___ Sd/- The Chief Justice