IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18436 of 2009 1. RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH S/O SADANAND SINGH R/O AT &P.O- KHESAR, P.S- BELHAR, DISTT- BANKA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, VISHWESHRAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT GOVT. OF JHARKHAND, F.F.P. BHAWAN, H.E.C. AREA, DHURWA, RANCHI 3. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, VISHESHWARAIYA BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 4. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JHARKHAND THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, F.F.P. BHAWAN, H.E.C. AREA, DHURWA, RANCHI ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Randhir Kumar Singh For the State of Bihar :- Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. X & Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to G.A. X For the State of Jharkhand :- Mr. Satyavrat Verma. ---- 6 23/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner is a transporter who plies his buses on routes between the State of Bihar and Jharkhand. The reason for the petitioner to approach the High Court is issuance of a notification dated 24.05.2007 contained in Annexure-2 by virtue of which number of permits to be - 2 - issued by the State of Bihar and Jharkhand on reciprocity basis has been increased many a times over beyond the draft publication which was issued in the year 2003. Contention of the petitioner is that the new notification contained in annexure-2 not being in consonance with the draft notification contained in annexure-1 suffers from the vice of breach of Section 88(5) and (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Court is not willing to get into the nitty-gritty of the argument made on behalf of the petitioner for the simple reason that the gazette notification contained in Annexure-2, probably, was issued on 24.5.2007 and challenge to the same has been made by the petitioner only on 23.12.2009 when the present writ application came to be filed and instituted. Many rights must have accrued in favour of large number of fleet/transport owners since issuance of gazette notification and filing of the writ application. All these facts have not even been stated. In absence of satisfactory explanation as to why such a belated challenge has been made on behalf of the petitioner to annexure-2 and many legal rights must have - 3 - accrued as a follow up action of annexure-2, no order for interference is required in the above stated circumstance in the present writ application. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)