'i ^^--w BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) N0. 12007 PETITIONERS y .^w>^ ..-••"' -" ...v:®^-" ......-•^'f^' ^yy^ . .** M/s. Kanker Roadways (Partnership Firm) fhrough Partner^^ Shri ^ Pritam ^Singh s?e.^)oaet^>- £'na»<n^ i,' Aged about 33 years', R/o. Civil'Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Rafik Ahmad Siddhique, S/o. Late Shri M.Bari, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Rajatalab Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1^—-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur 2^. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. The Secretaiy, R.T.A. Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4. ^' 5. Manish Travels, New Bus Stand, Durg (C.G.) M/s. Payal Travels, Transport Operator, R/o. Bus Stand Durg (C.G.). WRTT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF mDIA s»&;r 3]. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SINQLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNlHOTRi. J. <" Petitioners Respondents WRIT PETtTION (C.) N0.2S8 OF 2007 versus M/s Kanker Roadways (Partnership Firm) and another State Transport Appeliate Tribunal and othsrs Present : Mr. B.K.Rawat, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Deputy Govemmsnt Advocate for the State/ respondents No.2 and 3. None appears for ottier respondents. ORDER ith (Passed on 20U1 Day of February, 2007) By this petition, the petitioners.chaifenge the validity of the order dated 5-1-2007 (P-3) (P-4) passed by the Regional Transport Auttiority and orders dated 31-1-2007 (P-7) (P-8) passed by the State Transport AppeSiate Tribunai at Raipur. 2. The facts. in nutshell, are that the petitioners are operating and plying stage carriages. The petitioners have applied for grant of temporary permit for plying Bus on the route from Raipur to Baitedila via Abhanpur, Dhamtari, Charama, Kanker, Kondagaon, Bastar, Jagdaipur, Geedam, Dantewada, Bacheli and back. The petitioners applied for temporary permit on the same route for the same ^ timing. The timing is 20.35 departure from Raipur, 7.20 arrival at Bailadila, 19.20 departure from Bailadiia and 5.50 arrivai st Raipurfor a period from 1-1-2007 to 30-4-2007 (P-1) (P-2). 3. The Regionai Transport Authority - respondent No.2, after having considered objections raised by other transporters, rejected the appiications of tte petitioners by order dated 5-1-2007 (P-3) (P-4) on the ground that the petitioners have sought for timing just 10 minutes beforeother stage carriage permit holders. !n view of the distence of the route, i.e., about 439 kilometers, this may create undue prejudice to other permit hoSders, who are plying their Buses on the same route having departure from Raipur at 20.45 and departure from Baitadila at 19.30. The petitionere have sought for temporary permit for the timing just 10 mmutes before fte time granted to Manish Traveis and Payal Travels. The orders were passed after considering objections raised by the other transporters. 4. The petitioners, in appea!, approached the State TransDOrt Aooeilate Tribunal. The Tribunal, bv its orders dated 31-1- 2007 (P-7) (P-8), passed In Appeal No.5/2007 and ^peal No.4/2007, confirmed the findings and decision of respondent No.2, holding as under:- t "8. ^' t!g ^ aiidlrij an^^r ^ ult 'Miq'qiO VfW 'gfl^ ^N» 10 PRS ^ 3ii4Rd<*'ti?arf (srsifd naf) -^ qrgq 'U^iRiri ?t ^ t. fSf TPfe ?Nt. »>ft t' ^ Tysi g1? A' 'gteT 'if^t' v. WvR ?N ^ 1W?»^ftN^ awjfijt 3114?<i'i'tt! *^ 5. The petitioners have preferred this petition under ArUcle 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the vaiidity of the orders passed by the State Transport Appeitate Tribunal - respondent No.1 . l have gone through the orders passed by ttie authorities below, pleadings and documents appended thereto. It appears thatthere is no perversily in the decision and ths orders are passed on proper appreciation of facts and application of taw. !t is not a case of no evidence or a case of violation of principtes of natural justice. 6. It is well seUed that the power to issue a writ of certiorart under Articte 226 of the Constitution or the exercise ot supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of fte High Court dlctates it to act. (See Surya Dev Ra! vs. Ram Chander Rai and Gtkers). 7. In Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chanslw Rai and others (supra), it was further held that a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of fte Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors orjurisdicfon, i.e., when a Subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdicBon - fay assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in ©xcessof its jurisdiction - by overstepping or crossing the limlte of jurisdiction, or (iii) adjng in flagrant disregard of iaw or the rules of procedure or acting in vioiation of principtes of natural justice where there is no procedure ^ specified, and thereby occasioning faiiure of justice. In fche same case, Hon'bie the Supreme Court further held as undar:- "38. Such tike matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetitton and s^te the as hereunder (1) <3) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (5) ie it a writ of certiorari or the exereise ®f supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless ths folfowing requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and aoparent on the fact of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter dlsregard of the provisions of !aw, and (it) a grave Injuslice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.' 8. Thus,! have not found any irregularity or gross injustice being occasioned by the orders passed by fte authorities below. 9. Thus. the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge fi^^f^fn, <•<> <-«f^*^ ^•^(•" Q Oi^^ QfV Gt^a!