e . Y • IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CDURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR f • ^ ^ PETITIONER (Revisionist) / W.P. 227No.-—6-CM^-—/10' Kaushal Kumar Puraina S/o Shri. Dayal -^y ^^.^••;\0 ,.^'] ^^sfyi6^-'"' ^•R" -\^^-" ^s^^'"^' '?>'<-' »" - vi Das Puraina aged about 40 years, R/o Dr. Rajeadra Nagar, Janta Colony, House No. 32, Tali Bandha, Post Ravi Gram, Raipur, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (Non-applicant) / /\. Jeet Singh Bagga S/o Shri Trilok Singh, Awanti Vihar Colony, Raipur, Tehsil and District - Raipur (C.G.). ^. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Near Ghadi Chowk Raipur . Assistant Secreta^, State Transport Authority Chhattisarh, Raipur. WRlT.PETmON UNDERARTICLE127 OF THE CONSTITUTIQN_OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCES OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERT10RARY/ MANDAMUS / ORDER / DIRECTIONS ETC. y PARTICL)LARS_DEJlffi£EI.IIIQMEa. mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 6044 of2010 PETITIQNER : Kaushal Kumar Puraina. VERSUS (Revisionist) RESPONDENTS : Jeet Singh Bagga & Others. (Non-Applicant) WRJT PETIT!QNUNDERjVq'!CLE127 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bIeShri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.L.Dembra, Advocate on behalfofShri Santosh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri A.S.Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate General for the State/ Respondent No. 2 and 3. ORDER(ORAL) CPassed on 10ttl day of November, 2010) Heard leamed counsel for the parties. 1. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the order dated 07.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 3, and the order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal i.e. the respondent No. 2, confirming the order dated 07.08.2010 (Annexure P/l). 2. The facts, in nutshell,. are that the petitioner is a transporter and is in possession of a temporary pennit for the route from Raipur to Saraipali via Aarang, Jhalap and Pithora, wifh retum trip daily. The said permit was valid upto 31.10.2010. The respondent No. 1 was granted inter- State permit for the route &om Raipur to Padampur (Orissa) via Arang, Tumgaon, Pithora, Basna, Garhphuljhar, Jharbandh, Pikemal and back, by order dated 07.08.2010 (Annexure P/l), passed by the respondent No.3. I-%^. v l''~i''^ ^•i:, ^ 3. The main ground of challenge to the aforesaid orders is that the impugned order dated 07.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) was a conditional order and the respondent No. 1 is operating the vehicle without the counter signature of the competenf transport authority of the State of Orissa, though it was stated that the bond of mutual consent was not applicable in case ofrespondent No. 1, ifthe vehicle would be stationed in its own state at night. But in the case on hand, the vehicle was not stationed in the home State at night. Under the terms of section 87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988'), a temporary pemiit may be granted only for a limited period which shall not exceed in any case for more than four months. Further, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity ofhearing before.passing ofthe order by the respondent No. 3. thus, this petition. 4. The State Transport Appellate Authority has considered the objections raised by the petitioner holding that in case of a private carriage, the minimum requirement is 30 days under the provisions of section 87 of the Act, 1988, but the vehicle involved in the instant case is a public carrier. Secondly, the objections raised by the petitioner before the authority in respect ofrequirement ofcounter signature has already been held, inter alia, as the permit clearly indicates that the order shall be valid subject to'counter signature ofthe competent transport authority of the State of Orissa. Thus, it was found that there was no infirmity in the permit granted to the respondent No. 1. 5. With regard to the averment fhat opportunity of hearing was not afforded before passing the order (Annexure P/l), on pemsal, it is found that the petitioner as well as one Bharat Lal Tandon had already filed their objections before the respondent No. 3, and after having considered their objections, the impugned order has been passed. Thus, the avemient of the petitioner to that effect also deserves to be rejected on facts. 6. Proviso to section 87(1) ofthe Act, 1988 clearly provides that a permit may be granted for a period exceeding four months. The said term may be extended upto one year under the circumstances of exceptional nature after recording reasons in writing. The permit was granted from 10.08.2010 to 30.11.2010 and as such, it is not beyond the period of four months. Thus, it is not necessary that there should have been an exceptional circumstances after recording reasons. Hence, there is no violation ofthe provisions ofsection 87(1) ofthe Act, 1988. 7. I do not fmd any infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent No. 2. Furfher, there is no question to examine the order dated 07.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) passed by the respondent No. 3.as the same was considered by the respondent No. 2 and the same stands merged with the order dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure P/4) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. If there is violation of any permit condition, there is a separate forum for the same. 8. It is well-nigh established that the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should refrain itselffrom interfering with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face ofthe record, which are not available in the present oase. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. ,/ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge