iU ,CJ. Vs. Guruprit Singh Bawra SSo Tsjpa! Singh Bawra, Aged about 38 year. New Bawra Transport, Namnakaia, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 1. Regional Transport Authority, D.K.S. Bhawan, Ra'spur (C.G.) 2. Secretary, Regs'onaS Transport Authority, Link Road, Biiaspur (C.G.) 3. Dhananjay Son'i, Shivaji Ward, Ramanujganj, District - Sargujs (C.G.) 4. Srate Transport Appeiiate Tribunai, Chhattisgarh, Ghari Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Present: and 4. Shri A.K. S'nrivatava, iearned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A for the respondents 1, 2 Shri Santosh Gupta, iearned counsei for respondent No.3. (Passed on 24tn August, 2006) On an appiicatlon made by the third respondent for grant of a frssh reguiar permit on routs Khongapani to Ramanujganj, Via - Manendragarh, Nagpur, Surajpur, Ambikapur and back, the RegionaS Transport Authority having gone through the requirsd procedure contempiated , under the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and the Ruies framed thersunder, by its order dated 27/03/2006, granted rsguiar Permit N0.2538/B/200S to the third respondent restricting the permtt for the route Manandragarh to Ramanujganj, Via-Ambikapur. Cailing in question the correctness of the above order of the first respondent, the petitioner herein preferred revision under Section 90 of the Act to the S.T.A.T^eontencSin< that since the third respondent had appiied for the reguiar permit on route Khongapani to Ramanujgani, Vla - f^anendragarh, Nagpur, Surajpur, Ambikapur and back, the order of the first respondent granting permit onty for the route Manandragarh to Ramanujgan], Via-Ambikapur is illega!. !t was a!so contendsd that on receipt of the application of the third respondent the same was pubiished as it is for grant of permit on the route Khongapani to Ramanujganj, Via - Manendragarh, Nagpur, Surajpur, Ambikapur & back and not on the route Manandragarh to Ramanujganj, Via-Ambikapur. The S.T.A.T. without finding any merit in the s.bove contention dismissed the Revlsion by its order dated 18/07/2TO6. Hence, this writ petttion. (2) i heard learned counsei for the parties. The ground urged before the STAT and reiterated bsfore ths Court is quite failacious. It is not that there is any change in the route mentioned by the third respondent 'm his sppiication. The first respondent for an obvious reason, the reason being that the route from Khongapani to Manendragarh was not formulated and having regard to the settied position sn iaw, did not rightEy grant the permit with regard to the above streteh of the route. Therefore, there te no substance in She contention raised before the Court. it aiso needs to be noticed that under sub-Section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority has undeniabiy the power to grant permit as sought in an appiication or with such modification as it deems fit. The power exerclsed by the first respondent to grant reguiar permit on ths route oniy Trom Manandragarh to Ramanujganj square-iy fails within fhe power of the first rsspondent as contemplated under sub-Section (1) of Section 72 of the Act. Looking from that ang!e also, the power exercised by the first respondent cannot be fauited. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingiy dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ^' -.^