w} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J Writ Petition (227) No.7118 o_f 2009 ORAL ORDER (4m December, 2009) Dhirendra Mishra, J Shri Shailendra Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.4 applied for grant of temporary stage carriage permit to the State Transport Authority, Raipur (in short “the STA"), for Raipur to Erlagaon route for one single trip daily. The Assistant Secretary, STA, proposed to grant temporary permit to respondent No.4. However, respondent No.2 rejected the application of respondent No.4 vide order dated 30‘“ September, 2009 (Annexure P/4) on the ground that the authority has already heard the applications for grant of permanent permit on the above route on 16.9.2009 and the applications are pending consideration. O2. Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal against the order of STA before )w’the State Transport Appellate Authority (in short “the Tribunal”), Raipur. The ' Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent No.4, quashed the order dated 30.9.2009 and directed respondents No. 2 & 3 to allow the application and grant temporary permit to respondent No.4 vide order dated 30th October, /, Petitioner : Nand Kishore Jain, S/o Late Sampat (_lntervener) Lal Jain, aged about 42 years, R/o Vikas Nagar Kondagaon, Bastar, District Jagdalpur (CG) Through power of attorney holder, Shambhu Sharan Shukia, S/o Shitia Prasad Shukia, aged about 24 years, R/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, Vs Respondents 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur(CG) 2. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur, (CG) 3. Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur, (CG) Appellant 4. Kulraj Singh S/o Malkit Singh, R/o new Bus Stand Pandri, Raipur (CG) Through power of attorney holder, Aakash Deep Singh S/o Lakhwant Singh Gill, aged about 20 years, R/o new bus stand Pandri, Raipur (CG) 2009 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has impugned the Order of Annexure P/1 in the instant petition. O3. Shri Bajpai, learned counsei for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner had also filed an appeal against the rejection of his application for temporary permit before the Tribunal as applications for temporary permit of both the applicants~the petitioner & respondent No.4, were rejected by the lower authority. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and the order of remand was passed, whereas in the instant case, the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 has been allowed and the lower authorities have been directed to grant temporary permit to respondent No.4. The Tribunal has acted with material irregularity in passing two discriminatory orders on similar facts. 04. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. O5. The Tribunal in Para-7 of the impugned order has referred to the order passed by Assistant Secretary/respondent No.3 herein, whereby the said authority after hearing the applicant and objectors/interveners, recommended that by granting temporary permit, it would not only benefit the passengers of the route, particularly in the marriage and festival season, but would also benefit the State in terms of revenue. He also observed that the applicant is plying one bus on the basis of temporary permit, which is valid till 30th September, 2009. However, the respondent No.2 rejected the recommendation on the ground that hearing on applications for permanent permit has already completed. The Tribunal by the impugned order, considering the material available on record and recommendation of respondent No.3, rejected the objections of both the interveners, and directed respondent No.2 to grant temporary permit to respondent No.4 as proposed. 2i 06. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal, in two similar situation and facts, has passed two different orders, is not reflected from the impugned order. ln the instant case, the Assistant Secretary, on due consideration of the material available on record, recommended for grant of temporary permit to respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 was already issued a .x- temporary permit for the same route for a period up to 30‘“ September, 2009, whereas from perusal of the order of Annexures P/6 & P/7, we find that there is no recommendation for grant of temporary permit by the Secretary and there was no temporary permit in favour of the petitioner (appellant of that appeal. ’ l j. ‘ 07. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order and other documents annexed with the petition, i am of the opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any iiiegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order warranting interference. The petition is without any substance, the same deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/— Dhireadm Misnra‘i r Judge