/^. 'v^ PBTn-IONBR HIBH COURT OE- CIBHATTISeARH AT BIfcASroR W.P.ICl N0.7338/2007 KhubchandAgrawal, S/o. Late Shri Daluram Agrawal, aged about 34 years, R/o. Balco, Distt. Kwba (CG^) RBSPONDENTS Versus 1. 2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh at Raipur Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Chhattis^rh at Bilaspur WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 226 OF THB COIISTITUTI<M»OT INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Srtlah K. Atfnthotri. J.l Shri Aashul R.Shrivastava, counsel for the petittoner. Shri Suinesh Bajaj, Govenuncnt Advocate for the Stote. ORAL OSaSER (Passed oa thls l2UI day of December 8007) 1. Leamed counsel appearing fov fhe petitioner subinits that the petitioner has aot availed opportiuuty of heariag aad failed to appear when his case was taken for consideratfon to grant regular stage carriage permit 2. The petitioncr, therefore, caanot c<miplaia that opporttaiity of hearing was not givea to him as contemplated under the provisions of law. The petitioner, tumseM, beiag fhe appMcant . had been given sufficient opportunity of heariag whicM he has failed to avafl. The peruut was rejected on fhe ground fhat he reniained absent. The petitioner Iias atready availed the opporuntily ofhearmg. 3. TIiis writ petition ^aiust the order passed by Regional Transport Aufhori.ly is not mamtamablc as there is a -2- '72 statutory provision of approacliing to the Statc Transport AppeBate Tribuaal. 4. In view of fhe foregoing, fhe petitian is disiaissed. However, the Uberty is rescrved to the pctitkmer to prefer an appeal, if so advised, before the State Transport AppeUate Tribimal, as there is a statutoiy provision iinder Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of approachiug the State Tra&sport Appellate Tribimal. __ Suguna. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge