? lM.?r^;fe^. ...^•-'•^'^ffZ^- ^•y ^ .et'*" p<96®" c f(-ff^ 2— RESPONDENTS:!. IN THB HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.PJC1.NO. ^84/2007 PETITIONER: - Mod. Farooque, S/oAbdul Rashid, Prop. New Samim Transport, Kharisia Road Ambikapur, [C.G.]. VERSUS State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur [C.G.] Regional Transport Aufhority at Bilaspur [C.G.] Sectary R.T.A. Bilaspur [C.G.] Vijay Kumar Garg, S/o Tejuram Garg, Bus Operator, R/o Pathal Gaon, Distt. Jaspur, [C.G.] Noore Haque, Bus Operator, R/o Khari^K^ Naka, Ambikapur Giyaul Haque, Bus Operator, R/o Kharisia Naka Ambikapur [C.G.] Arun Agarwal, Bus Operator, R/o Seth Basant Lal Marg Ambikapur [C.G.]. ^RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE2&6 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 7. n i^vur^.i wr ^^ ^M*-^ Q.a<- it Peiition (c') No. 1384 of 2-307 O^A!^^ -•etitioner Mod. Farooque, S/o Abdul Rashid, Prop. New Samim Transpori:, Kharisia apur, (C.G.) Vereus State Transport Appeliate Tribunai, Raipur (C.G.) ana' others. Post for order ^3 -4. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 'f^-'.J f^- ?wl >F CHHATTISG^ Writ Petition (ci No. 1384 of 2007 Petitioner lesponcients Moc!. Farooque, S/o Abdui Rashid, Prop. New Samim Transport, Kharisia Road, Ambikasu.1', 'c, G '. I \'^.'^-".^ Vsrsus 2. 4. !"?at.^ Tr?:iH?;Firsrf Anrs^ll^t^ Tr'ihiJH?5! ,^ii*^ j i wli 1-^j^/^l a* ,T-^*dt^'^?U^4*'i-? i S l^^/j^ i^i^j Raipur (C.G.) Regiona! Transport Authority at Bilaspur 'Tt fl \ •^.^.} Secretary, R.T.A., Bitaspur (C.Q.) Vijay Kumar Garg, S/o Tejuram Garg, 3us Operator, R/o Pathat Gaon, Disti. Y^ ^ \ ^- .\y. ? 7 Noors Haque, Bus Operator, R/o Kharigarh Naka, Ambikapur (C.G.) Glyau! Haque, Bus Operator, R/o Kharisia Naka, Ambikapur (C.G.) Arun Agara'al, Bus OperEstor, R.'b Seth Basant Lal Marg, Ambikapur, t^ y->.lj.} !T PETITiON UNDER ART1CLE 225 OF THE CONSTITJTIQT^ QF I'MDSA iinaie Bench Hon'bls Mr. Justice Satlsh K. Aanihotri 'resent: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Go'vi:. Advocate for the State/respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for t'ne respondent No, 4. n R n issea on -ry this c2^ day "I. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has cha!ienged the legaiity and vafidity of the order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure Pi'e], passed by the State Transport Appel'ate Tribunai (hersinafter referred to as "the STAT"), Raipur In Appea! No. 73/08. 2. The indisputable facts in nutshel! are that the respondent No. 4 is a private bus owner. He applied for temporary permit on the route i.e. Jashpur to Raisarh from 15.11.2006 to 14.03.2007 before the Regional Transoort Authority (hsreinafter referred to as "the RTA"), Bilaspur, which was rejected on 27.11.2006 (Annexure P/5). <^ ;^ 3. The respondent No. 4 filed an appeai, being Appeal No. 72/06, before the STAT, Raipur, wherein the STAT heid thct the Secretary, RTA cannot decline to reject temgorafv Derrnit, keeping in view the orovislons of sub-seciion (1) (C) snd (D) of Section 87 ofthe Motor Vehicies Act, '\98i (hereinafter referred to as "ths Act, 1988"). !t was further heid that the secretary, Additional Secretary or Assistant Secrstaiy is empov/eree under sub-section (1) (C) and (D) of Section 87 of the Act, 1988 to issue permit, but in case of grant of temporary permit under the provisions of sub-section (1) (C) and (D) of Section 87 of the Act, 1988, approva! of the State Transport Authoritv is a necessarv conditlon. 4. in the present case, since the temporaiy permit was not grsnted, the're Is no necessity to obtain approval of the State Transport Authority. T'ne TAT found that the appi'cation filed by the respondent No. 4 was rejected on the ground that on the dat®of hearing, the applicant was not present and there is no document to prove that he had any sntimation about the date of hearing. In view of that, keeping in view the require'ment of more buses on occasion of marriages and on various festivals, t'ns Secretasy, RTA was directed to grant temporaiy permit w.e.f. 6.11.2006. The period of temporar^' permit in question has come to an end on 14.3.2007. 5. Mr. B.P. Gupta, isarned counsei appesring for the petitioner wouid submit that 'the RTA has to consider the facts to the extent that the route is specified and notiTied, there are not more than flve permits at a time, thers is not any tax due, there is no case pendlng or there is no a clash of time. The STAT, v/it'nout considering aSI the aspects, has directed the SecreSary, RTAto grantthe perinitwith retrospective effecfr 8. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the i-espondsnt No. 4 wou!d submit that the RTA has granted fresh psrmit for the period of 1.4.2007 to 30.4.2007 on the sasis of the new application. Ths petltlon has become infructuous, as the time granted eariier has already come to an end. '' '••~~ 1 Having considered submissions made by learned counsei appearing for the parties and having perused the pieadings and documents appsnded thereto, it is evident that the applicstion for temporary permit was for the period of 15.11.2006 to 14.3.2007 which has come to an end. The STAT, without having considered al! necessary requirements fcr grant of permit, has no jurisdiction to direct the RTA to grant the permit for the period which had aiready come to an end. Thus, t'ne impugned order dsted 18.1.2007 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 4 is at jibe;'ty to rnake a fresh appiication for grant of temporary per;riit before the RTA, Bilaspur and the sarne may be considsred in accordance with law by t'ne RTA, Bilaspur. This petition is accordingSy ailov/ed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1