'W) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J Writ PetitionJgzn No.7120 bf 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 appiications for grant of permanent permit on the above route on 16.9.2009 and the applications are pending consideration. 02. Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal against the order of STA before the State Transport Appellate Authority (in short “the Tribunal”), Raipurr The yxr’Tribunal allowed the appeal of respondent No.4, quashed the order dated 30.9.2009 and ditected respondents No. 2 & 3 to allow the application and grant temporary permit to respondent No.4 vide order dated 30m ‘Qgtgber,V, , \v" I Petitioner : Nand Kishore Jain, S/o Late Sampat Qgterveneg Lal Jain, aged about 42 years, Rlo Vikas Nagar Kondagaon, Bastar, District Jagdalpur (CG) Through power of attorney holder, Shambhu Sharan Shukla, S/o Shitla Prasad Shukla, aged about 24 years, R/o Rojgaripara, Kondagaon, Bastar, District Jagdaipur (CG) Vs Respondents 1. State Transport Appeliate Tribunal, Raipur(CG) 2. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur, (CG) 3. Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur, (CG) Appellant 4. Jeevan Bus Service, Through power of attorney holder, Tuleshwar Vaishnav, new bus stand, Pandri, Raipur (CG) 2009 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner has impugne the order of Annexure P/1 in the instant petition‘ 03. Shri Bajpai, [earned counsel for the etitioner, submits that the petitionr had also filed an appeal against the rectio of his application for temporary permit before the Tribunal as applicaions 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 n the instant cas, 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. Herd 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 authorit after hearing the applcant 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 30‘” 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 ‘9 respondent No.2 to grant temporary permit to respondent No.4 as proposed. 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 30m September, 2009, whereas from perusal of the order of Annexures P16 & 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 (appellakofiat l appeal. d p e ejn t i e a y i O7. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order and other documents annexed with the petition, l am of the opinion that the Tribunai has not committed any illegality, 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. i saw hireadra Mishra l > Judge i