AFK HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :- Mr. Vivek Verma‘ counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Somkant Verma. counsel for the respondent No.1 . Mr. Shashank Thakur. Panel Lawyer for the State. (Passed on this 30 day of January, 2009) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. the petition is heard finally. 2) By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the iegality and validity of the order dated 27-4-2005 (Annexure-PIZ) passed by the Regional Transport Officer. Raipur. whereby regular permit was granted in favour of the respondent No.1. 3) Learned oounsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holder of a regular permit No.24/95 on the route Raipur to Durg. which is evident from Annexure-Fl1. Learned counsel further submits that on the application of the respondent No.1 for grant of regular stage carriage permit on the route Raipur to Durg. the respondent authorities i.e. Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 27-4-2005 granted the same \x without formulating the route as required under the provisions of Section 68 EElmQEgg Smt.‘ Manju Badariya, W/o Shrikant' Badariya, aged about 3O years, R/o Shakti Bazar. Raipur (CG). Versus 1. Krishna Kumar Yadav. son of Late Shri Sitaram Yadav, Rio 789, Tilak Nagar. Raipur (CG). 2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh at Raipur. 3. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Transport Department, D.K.S. Bhawan. Rarpur. (3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for shorf “the Act, 1988’). The said permit has been granted in favour of the respondent No.1 for a period of flve years, which is megai. arbitrary and against the provisions prescribed under the law. Learned counsei next submits that the new permit has been granted seven minutes before the timing of the petitioner for plying her vehicle, which causes irreparable loss to the petitioner. 3) Per contra. learned counseltappearing for the respondent No,1 supported the order dated 274-2005 (Annexure-PIZ) passed by the V Regional Transport Authority and submits that while passing the aforesaid order the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality. 4) l have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Act, 1988 is with regard to formulation of route by the State Government and it envisages that “Government to formuiate routes for plying stage carriages”. Perusal of the above provision makes it clear that in the tirst instance without formulation of route by the State Government under Section 68 (3) (ca) of the Act. 1988, no transport authority is entitled to grant any kind of permit. Admittedly, in this case, without formulating the route the permit was granted in favour of the respondent No.1, which is against the provisions prescribed underthe Act, 1988. 5) For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 27-4-2005 (Annexure-PI2) passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Raipur, in favour of the respondent No.1 is quashed and the petition is ailowed to that extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit