'] <!'Vv: HIGH COURT W JUDICATURE eHHMTISGARH: BLASPW SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLESHRIS.R.NAYAK.CJ PETITIONER WR|ITPEn'raONN<3.2KB!8GS2(N ' Amn Kumar Agrawal, S/o. tate Radh^shyam Agrawal, aged about 4(t yeans, Resklent of SeUi Basant Lal Ma(B; Ambilapur(CG). RESeQNIDENTS Versus 1. State of Chhaltfe^irh, through tte Secrelay,TransportDepartnent,Ra<?ur. 2. Regjonal Transport Ghhattisgarh, Ra4»ur. Auttiority, 3. Shri Arvlnd imar Sh^i, Bus opeiator, Ifadupara, Amtrikapur. -ivt • Present: ShriB.K. Rawat, teamedcounsel for tte psUtkmer. Shri Yashwant Sir^h, teamed G.A. for <he Stata/responctenls 1and2. ShriA|ayShrivastaVa,teamedcounselforrespondet»tNo.5. ORALORDER (f^issed on 21" Fetffuaiy, 2008) E 'li .'u Jf Thewritpetitioner, one ArunKynMr Ayawal by nanne, by no streteh of ims^ination, coukl be constdered as an a%»riwedpereon by e ordgr dated 28-4-20re made ty the R^fonal Transport Authority, ChhatUsgsnti, Raipur, thesecotKlresporKlentherejn,granfingregularpeRnitontlwreutBGhytritotei to Ramanujganj via Manendragarti aml AmMlcapur in <avour of the thlnt respondent.It fe cont»nd«HWthe aecsond respQndent oi^ht nol^to hswe entertamedtheappliteaUonda^ grant of regular psnnit on the aftwwnenUoned rou^ becausa, ^ Govemment formulat^the nHitelvJsstdngan<rtBcalJononly<m31r3'2005. !!• llini' -2-- J» AccordingtoShriB.K.Rawat.teiBnedcoynselforthepetJtiwer.thesecond respwwtont has power to conslder the applteaUons fitod onfy after the route was fbrmulated and notlfied t^ theState Govemmentaml nelanyappnratton flted by any pereon b^ore thedate <rf notMicatkm. The cwrtenUon ofthe feamed cwnsel for the peBUoner fe not acceptabfe to ttie Court; The Regional Transport Authorify is a donee of statutory power undar ths provislons of the Motor VehKtes ^t, 1888 (for short 'Uie AcQ. None of the prowsions of the Act would insist that the Regional Transport AuthorUy acquires poiror to grart regular permtt only »an applteant nK*es an applicatfon aKer formulation <rf the route and its tVplfcaUon by way of ndification. The crux of the ma erte whether the secwid respondent as on 28-4-2(X®,the day on whteh it made the onter granting regutar permtton the aforementfonedroutelnfavourofthethirdre»pondent,hadl^srfadhorifyor not. Undeniably, as on 28-4-2005, thesecond respondent tad tegal authority to consider the applteatfonofthlrdrespondwtandpassapproprMe orders. Ifthe p^jtfonercould havemade ana|^>fca(ion on 31-3-2006 orany subsequent date, tt nrfll not stand to reason why simply because, an appljcatjonmadebefbre 31-^-2005, but.whichcameftn'considefaflonfceforw Uie second respondent after 31.03.2006, shoukt be ttirown out. (2) Secondty, the petHioner has no fecus sfaflcfr'tD chaltenge the impugned order maete intawur of flie third respon<tent. It needs to toe notteed ttiat the petitfoner is not a rival appBcartf for grant of regutaf or temporary permit on ttie aforementtoned route. The only Mng stated betws <he Court by Shri B.K. Ravwt Is thatthe petiflonsr too vrantedto applyfor grant of regular permft on th®aforementioneGl rout®afterthe formufatkmof the routeandlssuanceoyre^ficatkminthatregaKltbut/theli^iWaJre^^^ even .after 31-3-2005admittedfythe psUSoner dldiKrt malee tmy applicafien ^ aopsnfjaiio * -/PS / / •ABpOtUK»<(Ss|aa»ow(U!iflWtuepuods8J pijW WK ^ aiqeAed •-^ooo'e'fiiy 1B PWuaib s|so3 imM pessiiusip '9j<yai<^ 'S! uoBB8d )u»syi •uOgBavgsnf^^^^ fUM sti|»pe|t( sa|'suert|M9p u<»snowBflX9JO!t'suwasfl'iwjO!tB9d8iu."spiB<MevB9je»fl ueA»jiosO(K-t-8ZIIB^VV pauonusiuaxite sqi uoijuuad jeinBej p }ue.i8jos| I