^s^ ^,:^.^,^ ^ (^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4523 of 2009 Petitioner Anwar Ali, S/o Shri Saiyad Ahamad Ali, aged about 40 years, R/o C-18, Sector - 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG). Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Transport Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur (CG). WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA^ (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. O R D ER (ORALl (Passed on this 20th day ofAugust, 2009) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks to challenge the validity and legality of the impugned order dated 21.5.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, in appeal No.06/09, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure - P/2) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur was maintained. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a private bus operator. He moved an application for grant of regular permit for the route Raipur to Jagdalpur, which was allowed on 18.9.2008 by the Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur for a period of five years. However, the condition No.2 of the order provides that if the appeal of Shri Abrar Ahmad, which is pending, with regard to suspension of permanent permit No. 122/04, is ^^^^^ allowed then the permit granted to the petitioner will become null and void. Being aggrieved by the above condition No.2 in the order dated 18.9.2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the STAT. The STAT by order dated 21.5.2009 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order dated 18.9.2008 holding that there is no irregularity or illegality in the order as the objector Abrar Ahmed was having the permanent permit for the same route for which the petitioner was granted permit by order dated 18.9.2008. The permit granted to the objector Abrar Ahmed was suspended, against which he had preferred an appeal. If the appeal filed by the objector Abrar Ahmed is allowed, the position would be that the petitioner and objector Abrar Ahmed would have permanent permit for the same route for the same timing. Thus, the petitioner has flled this petition. I have heard learned cotinsel appearirig for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. The RTA has rightly observed that if the appeal of Shri Abrar Ahmad with regard to permanent permit No. 122/04 is allowed then the permit granted to the petitioner will become null and void. There is no error in the said order, therefore, the question of deletion of condition No.2 from the order dated 18.9.2008 does not arise at all. In view of foregoing, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders dated 18.9.2008 and 21.5.2009. The same are just, proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court. In view of the above, the petition has no merit, which deserves to be and is dismissed summarily. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge