HIGH COURT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR I ‘ Writ Petition (227) No. 5989 of 2008 (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Santosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12‘" day of September, 2008) With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing anally. 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.04.2008 (Annexure P/l ), passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority, has med this petition on the ground that the order is bad, as no opportunit of hearing was adorded to the petitioner while granting bus permit to the respondent No. 3. The time given to the respondent No. 3 is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, as the petitioner's vehicle is permitted to ply the bus aner 15-20 minutes. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and orders impugned herein. The permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on 18.01.2007 (Annexure P/8) in public interest with following conditions: y PETITIONER : Mohd. Kayum, son of Haji Mohd. Ayub, aged about Applicant 55 years, R/o Kharsiya Naka, Ambikapur, Distxict ’ Surguja, Chhattisgarh through Power of Attorney holder: L. Tirkey son of late Masiprakash Tirkey, Caste Uraon, aged about 62 years, profession Business, residence of village Chit Kawayin, Narayanpur, Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS- RESPONDENTS : ’ I. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur,Chhattisgarh. Non-applicants 2. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur, . ' Chhattisgarh.‘ 3. Mohd. Fahim Khan, son ofAbdul Hamid, Residence ‘ of Ram Mandir Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja‘ Chhattisgarh. v ' ;1ll "1. Mmmmwmazw’thwmmé V WWWW$WWI 2. WWI¥MW$5OWWW$ WWW! ' 3. mwm$wmm§hwm$ ma?! WWHWWWWEW!?UM mm! WwmmmW$soiia$Wi W’Wmi%mm.wmwmm mmmml mmm$mm1/99W1m sseimmzz/mams.1tos#mm mwm$m€§¢n It appears that two buses were rcquired during that time, therefore, one more vehicle has been permitted, which according to petitioner, is 15- 20 minutes before the time granted to the petitioner. The Tribunal has further found that before grant of this permit to the respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 3 was already plying bus on the same route at the p same time on the basis oftemporary permit. Therefore, there would not be any prejudice to the petitioner. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should rehain’itself from interfering with the order passed by the Court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the faceofthe record, which is not inthe present case. I do not find any irregularity, inhrmity or jurisdictional error in the .order passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority. The order is just and proper and, warrants no interference. iThis petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, I.A. No. 01, application for grant of interim relief also r» stands disp0sed of. I \_ " ,, I Sd/— 1 {f ’ isatish K.Agnihotri V Judge