@ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR Wlit Petition (227) No. 3442 of 2008 WRIT PE’I‘I’I‘ON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTFI‘UTION OF iNmA. (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri d,) Shri F. S. Khare, Advocate fer the petitions . ShnT Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Thakur ORDER (Passed on this 9th Day of Januaxy, 2009) With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally Learned counsel relying on the provisions of Section 89 (2] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘the Act, 19883 submits that the State 'I‘ranspmt Appellate Tribunal has no jun'sdiction to Iemit back the dispute pending before him for adjudication to the Regional Transport Authority. On perusal of the provisions of Section 89 of the Act, 1988 it appears that there is no such prohibition. Thus, in the interest of justice, if the Tribunal feels that the matter can be better adjudicated and decided by the Regional Transport Authority, after having provided, the. opportunity of hearing, the matter may be remitted back. In the present case the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur has passed the order on 15. 1 1.200o [Annexure P/ 4) without ajfording an opportunity of hearing to the other concerned persons. Thus, the impugned order dated 29.3.2008 (Annexure P] 1) is just and proper and needs no interference. The Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur shall decide the dispute as early as possible after complying with the provisions of Section 8O (2) of the Act, 1988. In View of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed. i Sd/— ‘Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Petitioner Kanker Roadways, Through the Appellant Partnsr, Prestam Singh Gamha, S/o Jogendar Singh, aged about 6O years, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State Transport Appellate Tiibunal, (C.G.)