- m T $ing§3 km? -?- .r IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA‘S‘IP’Ui; W.P.cNo. Lt Ci é L /2006 DEEPAK KUMAR IJARDAR, S/o Shri Jeevan Lal Ijardar, ‘vqyv‘ aged about 4U yrs. R/e Vinoba Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) Petitioner VERSUS watespondents : 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal‘ State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur 2. Regional Transport Authority‘, (C.G.) at Raipur '. Secretary, y Regional Transport Authority Raipur (C.G.) 4. Naresh Kumar Shanna, S/o Late Niranjan Shanna Bus Operator, R/o Near Bus Stand, Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. W , / XI-HC-78 33W, m, Wv WW 1H 20M, mm (13W) 32,. mam 'WW§WW - wmm Wmm 35WW 1 1.16.2006 Shri RS. Khare. c0u11361 for the uetitioner. Shm' Arum Sac. Govt Advocam for the respondents no. 1, '2 Pm LO Shri AiaV' Shn'vagtava. cbunsel for responciEnt no.4, who says That 11s ha$ flléd a cavaat nEtiton in this cass. _ ArgunmntS haard. Order dictat€d a3 follows: ORAL GREER. &_.__ Sunii Kumar Sinha, J, n fELsd under Articls 226 I 227 of The 'Constiturion of India. tho Dftitioner has called in quastion The validitv of the order dated 28.6.2006, passed by the State (STAT). Raiuur. in Revision Cage No.43/20G6. The aforesaid r vision was filed by respondent no.4- x against the order dated 2 .l’2.‘2005 paeeed by the. Regional Transnori Authoritv {RTA}. R ipur, by which a permit to ply THE vehicie on the route from‘ Pehna to .Raigarh via Melupara, Saraidioa. Tamnar Wass orde ed to be granted in favour of the netitioner and further a permi in Fmm CGMVR—48 wete granteri by // {1 \“5.W.WW, 1 1&1 ")(\(\£§\ BV wav of this writ Datiti‘ Transnom AppeHate Tribun the State Authoritv in Dursuai .ce of the aforesaid order. i/ XI-HC-78 3am, Wm, W3? mama: FF; 20m, . @ mm (W) WWW -l— WW§W®W. $WW The main ground raised by respondent no.4 before the STAT .was that though the order was passed by the RTA on 22.12.2005 for grant of thr: aforesaid pennit but 011 the said data. ths said route was not dulv constitlitod manna", tho RTA was having The fact that the aforesaid route for which the. nemiit was 22.12.2005v was neither dist disputed before this Court. I Ra ther this fact was recorded in uara 7 ”of the order passed by. the STAT that the aforesaid route was constituted ahd was availabie transport authorities on 3.3.2C O6 which is a subseauent date from the date of massing of the 22. 12.2003 The Tribunal had itself was fonnulated on the sz id date, an order granting Hermit is i It has also taken the View that the not in accordance with law. contention of the petitioner that for want of notified route he was permitted to ply the vehicle fro n Urha to Raigarh was not instified order of the said nature and no permit of such nature can be by the State authom'ties and in that no jurisdiction to grant anv such grahted was not constituted on )uted before the STAT nor it is transport permit on that 'routn. for grant of permit etc.‘ with the impugned order 13V the RTA on taken this View that since. the route because theie V as no soecifiv granted on the basis of the ordeV XI—HC-78 3am,m,m ‘0 WW . A~.’1;E~.1>..~.f1?.%z<... m, zooe mmwwy azp mam ' ’WW§WW WWW mmmm -Ef. QEWW ‘ . dated 22.12.2005 haSSed bv th€ RTA luscause that order was / . sneeifmcl for the 13111130363 01‘ disnoSal of 3.11 anbHcation which was smiciflcallv flléd for grant 01' nsnnit from Pelma to Raigarh route. réfermd to above.‘ B€for€ this; court. bailed counsd for the netitionér Submits that it was not in the knowladgo of the Detitionar that tho routs of Polma — Raigarh was not fc rmulated or conStitutod 13v the Stato 'Authori’ries for grain of nmmi‘c bV tho RTA.‘ therefore. such an aunh'cation was tiled and the order dated 22. 12.2005 was oassed 13V the RTA. He submits that when this fact‘came to the knowledge of the Detitioner. he nraved t3 the RTA for making a modification 1'11 the nermit and allowing him to 131V the vehicle from Urba to Raiqarh and 111timate1v it was sanctioned bv the RTA and the. endorsement to this etfect was made in the permit itself. His ‘ submission is that he shouli be allowed to continue his transnmt operations on the route snec itied as Urbato Raigarh and the order of STAT should be quashed] biodiiied to this extent. This contention raised bv learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force. It is settled m‘ooedure that for grant of a particular permit, route must be available to the compety XI—HC~78 3am,m m F‘ ibu%.u mm“°“””" Ea No mum- (WW) a W/