t" t.r'; ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR C.G. W.P. (227) No....L&^0.....2011 PETITIONER ^f)^) ^ Surendra Pal Singh, aged 36 years s/o Late Shri Sher Bahadur Singh Sector 2 Bhilai District Durg (C.G) RESPONDENTS RESPONDENT 1. ^^Ss^^2' se^*^ ........••^•^"^ 1 ^ 3. 's""'^'^'' VERSSUS Regional Transport Authorty Raipur (C.G) Rafique Ahmed Siddiquie Raipur State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur (C.G)(Not party Court below ) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE U/A-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WMT OR MANDAMUS/DIRECTION OF OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. »\ <y9 ^-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT8 WRIT PETITION (227) No. 4820 of2011 Surendra Pal Singh. VERSUS Regional Transport Authority & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF 1BE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Siiri Satish K. Agmhotn, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shi'i Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 23rd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.08.2011 (Annexure P/l) and 25.07.2011 (Amexure P/3) vvhereby the application ofthe petitioner for grant oftemporary permit for the route Rajnandgaonto Raipur via Soniiii Aiijora, has been rejected. 2. Shii Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application ofthe petitioner under section 87 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988'), for grant of temporary pennit for the route from Rajnandgaon to Raipur via Sonmi Anjora on 16.05.2011 (Aimexure P/2) fbrthe period from 01.06.2011 to 26.09.2011. He ftirther submits that the Regional Transport Authority, without considering fhe same in its tme perspective, has rejected the application vide order dated 25.07.2011 (Amiexure P/3). The said order was confinned by the State Transport Appellate Authority, vide order dated 11.08.2011 (Aimexure P/l). 3. Oii the other hand, Shri Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the aufhorities below. In fact, the petitioner, by way oftemporar;/7 permit, has ti'ied to devise a new method to increase the length ofthe route upto Raipur, whereas, the petitioner is holding the pemianent permit to ply his bus from Nagpur to Rajnandgaon only. Fuitlier, the tempora^ permit has been sougtit for the route Rajnandgaon to Raipur on the same vehicle and in contmuation pfthe route for vvhich the petitioner is having the permanexit pemiit. 4. On pemsal ofthe impugtied order dated 11.08.2011 (Amiexure P/l), it is evident that a criminal offence was registered against the petitioner being Crimmal Case No. 1281/2011, on the allegation that the ./^s^ //^ '^ s "^..^-^^. % 1 i%»»|| ^,. ^^.^ ";^^s^^' ^ petitioner was canying passengers on the route Nagpur to Raipur without there being any proper permit. The said allegation was accepted by the petitioner also. The appellate authority has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner was try7ing to increase the length ofhis route upto Raipur by way oftemporary peniiit, whereas, the petitioner is already having a peniianent peiinit for the route Nagpur to Rajnandgaon, which is not permissible under the law. Tlie petitioner has further not pointed out any jurisdictional eiTor, infiiTnity or in'egularity in the impugned orders. Thus, this Court, in exercise ofits power under Article 226 and 227 of the Conslitiition of India, is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order which is legal, just and proper. 5. The Supreme Court, 'mAbdulRazak (D) Thr. L.RS. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Others , observed as under: 21...There have been several other instances in which different High Courts hdve passed orders m exercise of poy^er under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India disregarding the limitations identified and indicated bv this Court m severaldecisions on the exercise of thatpower. We hope and trust that infuture the High Courts would keep m vtew the Umitations of certiorari jurisdiction/ supervisory jurisdiction and refi'ain from deciding the writ petitions filed under Article 226 or petitions/applications filed under Article 227 qf the Constitution as if they are adjudicating appeals ftled against the orders of the lower courts or other judiciaVquasi-jiidicial bodies/authorities." 6. The ratio laid down i?i the aforestated case has been refen'ed with approval in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Another v. Rajendra Shankar Patif-. 7. In view ofthe foregoing and applying the well settled priiiciples of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, the writ petition is dismissed. Ainit Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 2010 AIRSCW 1414 2 (2010)88cc 329