^^^^^- .,.^^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. 2^83Q 2004 Petitioner Fazal Haque, S/o. Abdul Haque, aged about 37 years, Bus Operator, R/o. Kharsia Naka, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja. Versus Resoondents 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, C.G. ,.^:^^ ^^ ^' ^ •, - .^v^^' 2- S.T.A. (State Transport ^;^'.^'; Authority), Chhattisgarh, ,^^'<^" Raipur (C.G.) 3. Mohammad Alim, S/o. Mohammad Ayub, Bus Operator, R/o. Kharsia Naka, Ambikapur, Dist. Surguja(C.G-) 4. Mohhamad Kayum, S/o. Mohammad Ayub, Bus Operator, R/o. Bargidih, Distt. Surguja (C.G.). PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA i-HC-22 3TT^['^T 'f^ri^r^n^r $b^ict» ^f^a ^5[ -^TRRR. "S^m?, fadl^y WH^(T%H(€b an^yr 'q=i% .w.f..2:.MOJ.°.v4."^t 209 x •^^ •^f^S' 3?iT^|'^EI^IT "^fel 24.09.2004 : Shri B,P. Giipta^ counsel f^j Shri Saiija}r S. Agrawal, Qo} Shri B.K, Rawat, comisel fcti Heaixl, The petitiouer ha^ preferr^ 226 / 227 oftlie Constifution of|: dated 08.06.2004 (Annexm-c P-4J Traiisport Appellate Tribunal, Ri leamed Tribunal aiter reviewmgl (Auiiexure P-3) passed iii Revisiorj Brief facts leadiiig to flU|i pctitioner hcrcio. had apptfcd for tiie route Ambikapur to Akambj while acceptmg tlie request of tli^ the concenied aiid iQ.terested respondeiit No,3 & 4 hereia filed to the tmiiiigs of bus to be opcj State-Traiisport Autiiority.aiter c< rcspondent No.3 & 4 vide its on application of tb.e petitioner fqr p1 accordiagly, a permit was graiite< schedulc, which rcflecte from. thc| State Traiisport Autliority after c to the conclusion tliat appropri^ bus staiid is 13.35 instead of c^^fa^li'li Nil^tetf'? I^SllfegM' '^r3iii^T3?n^i[ r tlie petitioner. rt. Adv. for thc. Statc. respondent No..3 & 4, ;d this writ petitioii under Artk^le [Iiidia beiiig aggrieved by tlie order passe-d by respondeut No»1-. State Ipur m MJC No.2/04 whereby the |its eai'Uer orcler clated 24.5.2004 No,462/03, set-aside the same, jig of this petitioii ai'e tliat the |a rcgular pcnnit to pty his bus on ^. Tlie State Traiisport Autlioriti'- -petitioner nwite-d objectioiis from persons; Iii ' response to that tlieir objections adiiiittedly relatitig tated ou thc said route. Lcamed (iisideiTrig tlie objections raised by ier dated 02.08.2003 allowed tlie ^iag fhe bus on tlie said route arid to him witli sUght chaiige in time secoud page of the ordcr that thc ^nsideriiig flie objections reaclied ^te starting time from Ambikapur 13.45^ as by tliflt nharig^ first + I^^fiazt ^I-HC-22 ^n^r'^1 f<'ti<=b 3T^T 5b*iiGr> <-<(^a -yei-^rai^. "^ft9FT5, ic«twy 3TI^T J3S^K V»<f 3.^0/01 ^——l—^-w WWtl St»N|C(» ' Tl^ lct-b^r' W^i ^^tlW^t^l -z- bus. operator i.e. after the petitf aiid secoiid bus operator wiU ge| furtlicr mcntioued ia the order Staiid Bageecha wSl be 16, 15 iifc tmie gap of 1 hrs eTicl ultim|i inodificatiou or chaiige iri fhe tii^i the objectors were rejected, I^ furtlier observed that the propc bacto^ard area aiid if tliis ^ perm.aiient bus will be availab| area people, However^ whtle typij tlie startiiig time froin Bageeclia of 16.15 and that perhaps ga^/c & 4 to file revision aad accordni^ beforc the State Ti^iisport Appeu The Stete TrsLiisport Appe 24,5.2004 decided tiie revision by rcspondent No,3 & 4, In the obseived by tlie tilbmial tliat grarited permit witli a tioie .sche< 16,15 iiistead of 16.55, but du< has been typed out as 16.55 iiisl to amend thc startiiig tiniuig of tliis modi&catioii flie revision wa^ Provisions of sub-rule (4) Rules, 1094 envissiffes tlia.t "th <s(h)rtdS41i'!t! NR^I^ 'fesl ^^g1?t i&^^FT3:n^ir loner, will get 35 laitiutes tiixie gap 1 hrs 10 iniiiutes tinie gap. Itwas [that thc startnig tiine froni the Bus istead of 16,45 iii order to keep tlie o^itely .held tliat after makmg tliis i^ie schedule, rest of tlie objectiou^ of I^earaed State Traiisport Autliority l.scd routc faJls on-tlie vfflages and si'mit is aUowed Uieii one extra £ to fhose villagers and backward ig tlie time schedule it appears tliat |vas wrongly typed as 16.55 iastead tpic opportunity to respondeut No5.3 |ly, tliey prefeiTed a revisiou petition lite Tribunal. sBLlate Tribunal vide ite order dated ^iid rejected all tlie grounds ta.ken last paragraph of fhe order it was |State Traiisport Autliority m fact |ule leaving Bageecha Bus Staiid at to sorae typographical niistalce it ?ad of 16,15 aiicl tlierefore, directed B^igeccha from. 16,55 to 16,15, With dismissed. 4)f Rule 143 of M.P. Motor Vehicles \b iribzinnl m^-y nft^r fnf{owing the + ,-HC-22 311^1 ^RT fc-iicb ^^ ^rHIcb <-<1^^ •+ •yer -^nqRpT. ^w?»r^ctw^ 3n^?r 'q^? _2,^<-(^lo.^.. Nl*«!fii 5bHicn "^ 200 •Iq^sr' 3^'^ilW^t proc^dure prescfibed in seciiorzs cb^fot4ii4 NlsHdIf'? Fs^ ^i^H ir^Pm^?!^ 89 and 90 qf ffzs Aci. and qfter fufiher encjiui^ if any^ as it inay ^pizsider neceQGaf^y c^nfinn^ va?y or set aside the orderagainst iuhich\the appeal or revision is prefejred or may pass such olher order in ?\ shall mctke an order accwdingty}}\ clear ui its tenii fhat Uie leaiTiec temis of perHiit aiid accordtQ.gly^ slation thereto as it deems fit and Therefore, sub-i-ule (4) is veiy Tribunal is eiitiUed to vanr Uie tliose temis were varied fiiidio.g that startnig tmiing froni Bagccch^. has iiicorrcctly been typed out as 16.55 mstead 16.15, howeve^ flie matter did not end ffaere. Respondeiit No,3 & 4 still beit^g dissatisfiecl moved a review applica.tion before tlie leaiiied State reviewiiig the order-dated 24.5.20|04. On tliis applicatioii leaiTied Traiisport Appella-te Tribunal for Tribuual siirprisuigly adopted procedure, unkuowxi to our judicial system aiid quashed the or^er-dated 02.08.2003. First of aU there is no provis State TTansport Appenate Tribun- |on for reviewing its order by tlie Id iii tlie Rule iteelf, secondly leaiTied State Traiispoit AppeUate /yribunal witliout giviag notice to thc affected pam7 aJloivcd the rcvi^w petition aad fb.at too/to thc extent fliat tlie peiniit of ttie petltioj view of tlie above, the order passec icr was cancelled, Therefore, iii by tlie leaiiiecl State Ti'aiisport |AppeUate Tribuual cao.not be a4owed to stao.d uot beuig in ^oiiformitv' with tlie relevaiit law, Leanied counsel for responde|at 3 & 4 argued that vidc order pated 24.5.2004 timmgs were cfaaii^ed by tlie Tribmial, which WQB |:iot periiiissible, tiBimg could not l^ave been chajiged unless other ?.ffected peiinit holders vvere sp.yen 4pPor1:uni^v of hea^^^ h^^- ? ^^ Jg^^eail- eas»&asisa^aasa» :^^..^^^...^,^^:: ,^^^, ;C-22 ^m^^^' ^n^i^T F^ipb 3TI^ S*>+1tct» W^^ + -3%f -^Fn^T. "^tW^, ^wmy W^^tl %N(cb ani^r 'CRR? __..w;i..^.°l.9j.S.-l..."^ 2(M> 1^^' 3tt<i^E ^<KilW —1'f riQt ilad £uiy force iii fhia. argziua^ instaiice^ as inientioned above^ passed b}7 the Statc Traiisport| perusal of the orders of the Stat^ reveal that fhe State Transpnrt A-| of tlie onier has categoricail^7 mei Bageecha Biust be 16,Ib ia c] rcspondent No,3 & 4 and to rcdrf pomt was already cousidered b| However, while typmg time sche| order due to lypographical xaistal| was typed out as 16,55 inste| Trajisport Appellate Tribuual snnj dated 24.5.2004, ttiat was wifhiii mentioiied under sub-rule (4) of R| Novi7 coBiing to aiiotlier poi operators^ right. will be affected But iii this argunieRt also I do uot wlien tlie orignial 'objectious wei No,3 & 4 no otlier bus operator h tlie tmie schedule given to the changed which affecte tlie right tiinc schcdule was fixed by the. Ai iiicludiiig respondent No.3 & 4 staiting time from Bageecha wa$ 16.15.__ ^t^fa^lHi ^l'Nd^ ^ l^sl' tfai^iit snt for the rea.soii tiia-t iii the firs.t |iio review lies agaiast the order Appellate. Authorin7. Secoudly, Traiisport Autliority and Tribunal ifhority io. the previous paragraph itioiied Uiat the staTtiiig tmie from. rcler to ineet the objections of |ss thcir gri.evaiicc.s, thercfore, thls .tlie State Traiisport Autliority, lule m tiie last pai-agraph of tlie the starttng tiaie from Bageeciia id of 16,15 aiid leaiTied State ?ly rcctified that iB.istaJsc by ordcr tlie j'urisdiction of tlie Tribunal, as iile 143. ^t raised by Shri Rawat that other n account of tliis tioie schedule. lind aay force for tlie reason that mvited, but except respoiident itid flled any objectiou aiid further Ipetitioner was not substantially [>f the other peiTait holclers, The ^thority aiter hcarmg ttic objcctors ^iid due to typographical mistake typed out as 16.55 instead of ^i^a^SSsSam ^y^^ /^^^ "a% ^ . ^-H^22 3?TT^?T'^T f^N'^n^r 5b*lict» yf^^ Roshan/ Sunita '+. ^ '^' -3-sr-^[CT?F(. '^NTT?, rs«yiwy sn^T T^ra^ WH^(T^NI<»» _.....^..f>..M^.h^^ 200 l^^r' 311^1 ^ktlW^T -5" Therefore^ for fhe afore^43 petitioiier cleseives to be aUowed ^ impugued order dated 08.06,2| rcsponcleiit No,l is here.by qua^l Transport Autliority dated 02.0| pei'mit to the petitioner is re^tore4 by tlie leaniecl State Transport Apt 24.5.2004 (Annexure P-3). Pai'tles are left to beai' tlieii' Certified copy as per rules, Id reason^' the • petitioii of tlie nd accordiiigly, it is allowed, The )04 (Aiincxi.ire P-4) passed by lied aiid the order of the State k2003 (Annexure P»l) granting subject to 'the laodi&cation niade beUate Tribunal isii its order-dated <=i»rf^4l^w^S^ fe^tfa^K ^^POT^H^F Wll COSt Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [Tft^ ^fo^l .0'