HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA J Writ Petition_(_227) No.7119 of 2009 Petitioner (appellant) Nand Kishore Jain, S/o Late Sampat Lal Jain, aged about 42 years, R/o 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 Jagdalpur (CG) 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (CG) 2. State Transport Authority, Raipur, (CG) 3. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur, (CG) Respondents ORAL ORDER (4th 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 applied for grant of temporary stage carriage permit for Raipur to Erlagaon route for one single trip daily to the State Transport Authority (in short .“STA"). However, his application (Annexure P/2) was rejected on 14.10.2009 on the ground that the authority has already heard the applications for grant of permanent permit on the above route and the same are pending consideration. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal"). The appeal was partly allowed and the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to STA for deciding the application afresh within 15 days as per provisions of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal ought to have decided the appeal on merits on the basis of material available on record as he has no power to remand the matter for fresh decision. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of theMP High Court in ”M the matters of Surendra Mohan Chaurasiya Vs. State Transport Appellate Authority, reported in 1970 MPLJ 253. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. r In the cited judgment, the Full Bench of the MP High Court has held that where the material on record ls insufficient to decide the matter and futther enquiry is necessary‘ only in such cases, remand can be made by the Tribunal. The mere fact of the Regional Transport Authority not having applied its mind to the facts of a particular case, would not be sufficient to clothe the Tribunal with the power to remand for fresh decision. ,ln the instant case, the petitioner’s application for temporary stage carriage permit was processed by the Assistant Secretary of the STA and they recommended to reject the application on the ground that the applications for permanent stage carriage permit for the applied route are under consideration and the parties have been heard on 18.9.2009 and the said recommendation has been accepted by the Regional Transport Authority with an endorsement “Yes" in the note-sheet. ln these circumstances, referring to the provisions of Section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short “the Act”), the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been partly allowed and the case has been remanded with a direction to decide his application afresh within a period of 15 days, keeping in view the provisions of Section 87 of the Act. There is nothing on record to show that there was sufficient material available before the Tribunal for deciding the appeal on merits and therefore, in my considered opinion, allowing the appeal of the petitioner in part and remanding the matter to the STA for decision afresh within a period of 15 days, cannot be faulted. There is no substance in this petition, the same deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and is, accordingly, dismissed. r Sd/ r > Bhirendra Mishrai