!?^S1 HIOH eOUKT CffJUDICOTUREGHHAmSOARrtBltASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI SK NAyAK, CJ PEDTIQNBR RESPQNIOENT$ VffiUT"HEmiQnMN10.2M®LQPSM«)S Arun Kumar Agrawal, S/o. tete l^idh^sh^m Agrawal, s^ed about 40 yeare, Reskiant <rf Srth Basant Lal Maqi, AmbJI<apur(CG). Versus 1. State of ChhatU^arh, through the Secretary, Tran^wtDepartment, Ratfpur. 2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattlsgarh, Raipur. 3. Akhilwh Pratap Sln^i. S/o. Shri AP. Sin^i, Bus Operator, Kadvpara, Ambilapur. Presenfc ShitB.K. Rawat.-teaineclcouRsetforthe peWionef. Shri SanjayS. Agrawal, teamedG.A. farlhe Statafrespondents ..:1. 'tandZ. -;;' yl: . .: ;. ,; 1 '•. : : : ;. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, leamed counsdforrespondent No.3. ORAfcOBBDeR (Passedon2il*FietnMiry,2006y Thewritpetitioner.oneArunKumar^rawatbyname.byno^retehof imagination, could be cwsidered as an aggrisved person byttieorderdat&d 29-4-2005 nrade by the Regfonal Ttansport Authority, ChhatBsgarh, Raipur. JSw second respondent hereln, granUng r^ularpermiton the routB ©hulritola to Ramanujganj via Manendragarh and AmbUopur h favour of ttie third rwpondent Itis contenttedftatthe secondTespondentoi^'itnotto have eidertained the applkarticn da^28^-2(X)5 flted byttettird^ grant of fegular pern^ on tha srforemei'rtiOned route, b«a»Be,(h6 State Govemment ftirmuWed the routaby Issuhia a nrtfficaUon oiriy onW'3^SOQ5. According to ShriB.K. Rawat, teamed counsel fwlhe petiBoniw. tt)& steond ^ ^ respondent has power to consider the apfrffcaUons fitod only atter the route was fonnulated and notilied bytt»State GevemmentandnetanyappUcation ffied by any person before the date of nQtificaUon. The contertton cf the teamed counsel (or the prfitioner is not acceptatrie to the Court. The Regfonal Transport Authority ia a donee rf ^atutory poww under the provisfons ofthe Motor Vehfclea Act.1888 ^orshorfthe Atf). None offlie provisfons ^ the Act would insist (hat the RegtorKil Transport Authortty acqulres power to grant regular permlt only if an appfcant mates an applicati<m after fornwlaUon of the route snd Bs awlicaUwi by way of noUficaUon. The cruxofthe msrtter is oAettierttie second respondent ason 29-4-2(XK,thedayonwhichitmadettie<>rdergranUr^|fegtdarpennitonthe aforemendoned route In favour ofthe thftd respondent, hadtegal authwily or not. Undeniabfy, as on 29-4-2005, the second respondent had tegal authorityto consktertheappltealionpfthirdrespond»rtandpassappropriate orders. ffthe pedUoner coukl have made an awlleatfon on 31-3-2005 tu-any subsequent date, it wll n<rt stand to reaaon why aimply because, an applicaflon made before 31-3-2005, but. whfch came for conskteratlon before the swond respondent after 31.03.2005, shouU be thrown out. (2) Secondty, the p^tioner has no tocus sfamcff to chaUei^e the impugned order tnacte in fewur offte thlnd respondent. It needs to be noUced that the petttioner is not a mal appNea»tf for grant of i^yfe or temporarypermJtontheirfofementkinedroirte.Theonlyttlngstatedbefore the Court by Shri B.K. Rawat is that the prtBkmw too wanted to apply for grant <rf regular permit on the aforementlonsd roirte after the fomwfertiai of the route and issuance <rf notification in Uiatr^ard, bi<,A®fe»ctr®matis1tat even after 31-3^005 admittedlx the p^iUbner did not maks any ap(^caUon fbr grantof r^uter permit on the aforementioned route ffll 29-4-2(X»br even ^ J"t t & -3 thereafterwards. The peUtioner, it seems, for extraneousconskteraUons, has filed this writ p^itfonwitlwut anyjustification. The wrt petitton »,therefore, dismlssed with costs quantified at Rs.3,00(V-, payabto to the thiKl r\. • respondent, within two weeks from today. ' /~~ Sd/- CcbiefJustice !ii': i ;1. ^i^^a^^l^