HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (Q No. 2632 of2007 PETmONER RESPONDENTS & 1. Ghanshyam Rathore S/o Shri Ganga Ram Rathor, aged about 38 years, R/oBus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Transport Appell?te Tribunal Chhattisgai-h - Raipur. 2. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. M/s. Balaji Travels Tapkara Distt. Jashpur. ftWRTT TmONUNDERARTK^ 227 OF THE CONSTTTLrnDN^INDIA SB: Hon'Ue Shri Satish K. Asniliotri. J. Present: Shri N.K.Chatterjee, Advocate foi-the petitioner. Sliri Shashank Thakur, Paiiel Lawyer forthe State/respondents No. 1 and2. ORDER(ORAL1 (P^sedonlO"1 dayof August, 2009) Heard. The petitioner, by this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution oflndia, seeks quashiag ofthe order dated 23 Jaauary, 2007 (Anne3cure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 1-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, in revision No. 272/2006 upholding fhe order dated 30th October, 2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Regional Transport Anthority, Bilaspur. The petitioner, bemg an objector, objected tp the application filed by the respondent No. 3 for grant of regular permit on fhe route from Portenga to Dipika, via Jashpur, Kunkuri, Patthalgaon. The petitioner plies his bus on the same route whereinthere is a difference of25 niinutesfrom fhe startingpoint and 55 minutes at the termination pomt. . Shri Chhatterjee further submits that the order passed in revision is bad on account ofthe fact tUat Ifae respondents have not considered the basic fact that the application was made by the respondent No. 3 for Bus No. CG-14-A/1077 but the Regional Transport Authority has granted regular permit on fhe vehicle No. CG-14-A/2176. Secondly, there is no speaking order. Q- Anut 3. Ihave heardleamed coumel appearing forthe petitioner,perusedfhe pleadings and documeats appendedthereto. 4. The revisional authority i.e. presidihg officer, S.T.A.T. after having heard the petitioner and other parties, came to the conclusion that in the application, fhe details and documents relating to Bus No. CG-14- A/2176 alone were available. There was no dues against payment of taxes and duty under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Further; no case was pending against the said vehicle, the insurance and fitness of the vehicle was proper and as such, the permit was granted for the said vehicle. 5. Thevehiclenumbermentionedinthepetitioni.e. CG-14-ZA/0125 and CG-14-ZA/0113 are contrary to the vehicle number mentioned m the order dated 23rd January, 2007 (Annexure P/l) i.e. CG-14-A/2176 which was yanted pennit. I do not find any irregularity, illegality or apparent jurisdictional eiror in the orders dated 30 October, 2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No. 2 and 23 Jaauary, 2007 (Aimexure P/l) passed bythe respondent No.l. 6. It is well-nish established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of fhe Constitution of India should refrain itself fi-om interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which is not in fhe present case. 7. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 30 October, 2006 (Amiexure P/2) passed by the Regional Transport .Authoritv and 23 January, 2007 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 1-State Transport Appellate Tribunal. 8. In view ofthe foregoing, this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ; Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge