...^ ..<^^ r^y .<^"-'v.;-'' ^.4$ / ef ^yy ^ ^ .^ ., IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH y..^ -- AT BILASPUR W.P. (ART 227LNOQ>iii3 OFL2009 PETITIONER j[Revisionist in Rev. No.65/08) RESPONDENTS {Impugned Order Passing Authority) (Appellant) Sfnt. Mankunwar Sahu, aged about 55 years, W/o. Madan Lal Sahu, R/o. Abhanpur District Raipur (C.G.) Versus :1) State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chhattisgarh Raipur (C.G.) :2) Krishna Kum.ar Nagwanshi, son of Shri Ram Singh Nagwanshi, Resident of Ring Road No.2 Gondwara, Raipur (C.G.) (Impugned order dtd. :3) Regional Transport Authority 5.09.09 passing Chhattisgarh, Commissioner Authority against which Officer, Raipur (C.G.) the appeal was made) U^at .ti&A.&^^SS ^ &A jy' WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^Bif-A^'^Fi'fls ,^fss^ ^.A. ^ HK^I GQUKT OF CHHATTISOARH AT mLASPOR PETmONER WRIT PETmON (227) No. 3413 ®f2009 : Siirt. Mankunwar Sahu. (Revisionist in Rev. No. 65/08) VER8US RfiSPONDENTS : State Transport Appellate Tribunal & (Impugaed order passing authority) Othere. (Appe&asat) WRIJ PETmON U^B)ER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aemhotri, J. Present: Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitionw. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawya- fw the State/respondent No.3. None forthe respondent No. 2, despite service ofnotice. ORDERCORAL) (Passed on 04th day (rf August, 2010) The case of the petitioner is tfaat the respondart No. 2 made an application for grant of regular permit on the route fiom Dhamtari to Raipur. The petitioner objected grant of regular penntt on tfae above stated route. Qn considering Ifae objection, the i^poadent No. 3 rejected the application of fhe respondent No. 2 by order dated 05.05.2009. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before tte State Transpart AppeUate Authority, without implea(fing the petitioner as a party-respondent. The leamed Tribunal, wifhout affording an opportunity of hearing to the objector i.e. the petitioner, set aside the order of rejection passed by the Re^onal Transport Authority and directed the respondent No. 3 to grant pwimt on the new application dated 27.2.2009. The eontention of leamed counsel foc the .petitioner is tl^at jMiee the application ofthe respoadent No.2 has been rejected on die appliestion raised by the petitioner, tiie petitioner has to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the application dated 27.2.2009 •WSK considered and regular permit was granted to the respondent No. 2, by Ae respondeirt No.l. •ife. '<»> * -... '% s?a-.,^--.^^^. ^ ':^^^;^^2^ ^ .S/!Vy 6. Shri Thakur; leamed Panel Lawyw appearing for Ihe respondent No. 3 submits tiiat the impugned order dated 15.06^200$ (Annexure P/3) has already been complied with. Thus, no useful puipose would be served even ifthe impugned order is quashed. Despite service ofnotice, Ifae respondent No. 2 has chwen not to appear before this Courfc may be on the g-ouiid that he was gyanted regular pemiit by the respondent No. 1 on 15.6.2009, it is not aecessary to appear before this Court. The leamed State Transport Appellate Tribunal has complrtely ignored the basie principles ofnaturaljustice as without affa'ding oippwtamty of hearing, in view of Ihe fact fhat the respondent No. 3 rejected the application of fhe respondeirt No. 2, on objectioa rai»d by the petitioner, the petitioner was neither impleaded as party before Ae respondent authorities nor any notiee was issued to han to put forward his case before grant ofpemut to the respondent No. 2, in passing ofthe impugned order. For the reasons stated hereinabove, tfie impugned order dated 15.6.2009 (Armexure P/3) is quashed and the consequential order also staads quashed. The matter is renutted back to the respondent No. 1 to its original file for considering the matter afresh, after afFording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respwrient No. 2 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, as early as possible. preferably within a period oftwo months. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. Amit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge