IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.10449 of 2011 ====================================================== Ravi Narayan Khaware, son of Sri Narsingh Narayan Khaware, resident at Loknath Thakur Lane, “B” Deoghar, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. State Transport Authority, Bihar, through its Secretary, Vishwasaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Chairman, State Transport Authority, Bihar, Vishwasaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. State Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Joint State Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Randhir Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, A.C. to G.P. 21. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 28-07-2011 The petitioner, a Road permit holder on Deoghar - Munger route, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal of his grievance in respect of counter-singing of the Road Permit by the authorities in the State of Bihar. Patna High Court CWJC No.10449 of 2011 (5) dt.28-07-2011 2 Learned advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that under the existing policy for Inter-State Stage Carriage, the permit issued by the State of Jharkhand is required to be countersigned by the State of Bihar. The petitioner has received the permit from the State of Jharkhand for plying his vehicle No. JH 15A/0843 of 2011 on the aforesaid Deoghar - Munger route as far back as in August 2007. Though the petitioner has applied to the State of Bihar for countersigning the said Permit, the same has not yet been countersigned. Therefore, the writ petition. Learned advocate Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey has appeared for the State of Bihar. He has submitted that under the prevailing understanding between the two States, a permit holder has to comply with certain conditions for countersigning the road permit. Under communication dated 17th October 2007 the Joint Commissioner of State Transport, Bihar, Patna specifically wrote to the petitioner to satisfy the authorities on four issues mentioned therein; to produce the relevant documents and to file affidavit. The said communication has not been responded to by the petitioner. The respondents, therefore, did not countersign the permit. He has also submitted that though the aforesaid communication was sent in the year 2007, the petitioner has filed Patna High Court CWJC No.10449 of 2011 (5) dt.28-07-2011 3 the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in 2011 nearly four years thereafter. Learned Advocate Mr. Singh has disputed the receipt of the above referred communication dated 17th October 2007. He has made an attempt to convince us that the vehicle in question is the 52 seater bus and 52 seater bus is equivalent to wheel width of 205 inches. We are at loss, though the petitioner has been specifically informed to substantiate his case with supporting documents and statements on affidavit, the petitioner is not willing to comply with the same. Instead, the learned advocate wants to convince us that those conditions stand complied with. To us it appears that the petitioner is not willing to give the particulars and the statements on affidavit as requested under communication dated 17th October 2007. In absence of compliance with the formalities the petitioner’s grievance is not justified. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. BTiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)