^ ^ ,^ HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRl RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUP^.AR SINHA, J. Pet'rtioner WritADpeal No.337 of 2009 Anwar Aii, S/o Shri Saiyad Ahamad Ali, aged about 40 years, R/o C-18, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Dlstt Ralpur (CG) VERSUS 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Transport Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2 Regionat Transport Authority, Bastar DMsion, Jagdafpur Writ Appeal aaainst the final order under Rule 158 (10) (B) of the Hiah Court of Chhattisaarh RuSes 2007 Respondents Present : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Aiok Bakshi, Government Advocate for the State/ respondents. »ndJudament (22"a January, 2010) The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2) Appellant Anwar Aii, a private bus operator has fited this wnt appeal against the impugned order dated 20.08.2009 passed in WP(C)No.4523of2009. 3) The appellant / petitioner in the writ petition was seeking quashing of condition No.2 .in the permit granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, vide order ^M dated 18.09.2008. The above condition was affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2009. The learned Singie Judge did not find any lliegaiity in the imposition of condition No.2 in theappeliant's permit. 4) Condition No.2 in the appeiiant's permit is to the effect that in the event of the permanent permit of objector Abrar Ahmad being restored, the permit granted to the appeliant/ petitloner would become ineffective. 5) Shri Aiay Shrivastava, iearned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that condition No.2 in the appeiiant's permit could not have been legaliy imposed by the Regional Transport Authority in view of the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6) During the course of hearing, it transpired that the appeliant/petitioner is already operating under the permit granted to himfrom 18.09.2008. 7) From the order dated 18.09.2008 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Jagadaipur (Annexure P/2), we gather that the appetiant himself offered to operate his bus against the tlmings granted to objector Abrar Ahmad, as he was not operating bus under his permit for a period of three years and the petitioner was operating on that route on the strength of temporary perm'rts granted to him. 8) In the above factuat background, we do not find any illegallty in the imposition of condition No.2 in the appellant's permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Bastar. padma ^ 9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for Interference in this intra Cou/tappeal. 10) The writ appeal, therefore, is Ijable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge