^ss^ ^^^;03^-- i.»--<"1 1 6' BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -!f^ v^ %tv \^$'^ .^./tj^ft^^7i L^. <^' ^ ^-^^ W.P. (0 No. ?<9^ of^»^^^ : Basant Roadways, through-Partner Arun Kumar Agrawal, S/o Radheshyam Agrawal, aged about 47 years, Main Bus Stand Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2) State Transport Authority, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3) Secretary State Transport Authority, Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4) Hridaya nand Tiwari S/o Nageshwar Tiwari NamnakalaAmbikapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OR n^»AMUS/DIRECTIONOF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ^/ys'%. ff (:ii. :...^ ^i \^il^ 1 PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.300 OF 2010 Basant Roadways Versus RESPONDENTS PETITIONER RESPONDENTS State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur & Others And WRIT PETITION (0 N0.301 OF 2010 Basant Roadways Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur & Others (Writ Petitions underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. 1. 2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 27th day of October, 2010) By these petitions, the petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 4-9-2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.l/State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the STAT") in revision case No.254/2009 & 253/2009 (Hridyanand Tiwari v. M/s Basant Roadways & Others). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is holding regular permit for the route Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh) to Daltanganj (Jharkhand). The same was renewed from time to time. Thereafter, it was renewed for a further period of five years by order dated 14-08-2006 (Annexure P/2) passed by the State Transport Authority, Raipur. The said order was challenged by the respondent No.4 before the STAT, which was allowed by the STAT by order dated 04-09-2009 and rejected the order dated 14-08-2006 passed by the State Transport Authority. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order passed by the ¥ ^ STAT is illegal, arbitrary and against the well settled principles of law. The respondent No.4 was not adversely affected by the order dated 14-08-2006, thus, he has no tocus to chatlenge the said order before the STAT. Hence, this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that the STAT being appellate authority has power to reverse the order passed by the State Transport Authority. The STAT has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not warrant any interference of this Court. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. It is indisputabte that the reciprocal agreement for operation of stage carriage between the State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Jharkand was finalized on 28-03-2008 and the same was published in the official gazette on 18-04-2008. Clause 10 of the said notification provides that for want of reciprocal agreement grant of regular permit and renewal of permit was permitted on counter signature of the authorities of both the States before publication of the notification in the gazette. 6. In the case on hand, the petitioner has categorically admitted the fact that the renewal of permit for operation of the bus of the above- stated route was done on 14-08-2006. However, the same was not counter signed by the officials of the State of Jharkhand. The STAT has considered this aspect and has passed the order accordingly holding that the renewal of permit without counter-signatures of the officials of both the States was invalid. There is no irregularities or infirmity in the impugned order. 5r 8. .Gowri Be that as it may, it is well-nigh established that the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itself from interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which are not available in the present case. In the result, the writ petitions, being bereft of merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge