HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1678 of 2008 (M/S) Mohammad Iklakh ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …..Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 11th December, 2008 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity, propriety and legality of the order dated 8.4.2008. At this stage, Sri Gopal Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has stated that the similar controversy has already been decided by the judgment and order dated 5.11.2008 wherein in a writ petition bearing no. Writ Petition No. 1961 (M/S) of 2008 filed by the State Transport Authority, where the same impugned order (as the one being challenged in the present writ petition) was challenged. Since the order dated 5.11.2008 is a short order, the entire order is reproduced below:- “This is a totally frivolous and misconceived petition and apparently has been filed because of total non-understanding of the import as well as effect and operation of the direction contained in the impugned order. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which unfortunately has not been made a party respondent in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide the impugned order dated 08.04.2008 merely issued direction upon the petitioner to consider the case of the respondent after affording him an opportunity of hearing and if found that the respondent fulfils all statutory requirements, to process his case for consideration with respect to grant of permit. Inherent and implicit in the said direction was a clear stipulation that the permit was to be granted subject to the satisfaction of the petitioner, subject to the respondent fulfilling all statutory requirements and also on the condition that the petitioner found the respondent eligible to be issued the permit. This direction could not at all be faulted with. Despite the State Transport Appellate Tribunal leaving all the options with the petitioner, the petitioner has unnecessarily rushed to this Court by this frivolous and misconceived petition, apparently based on its non-understanding of the import of the impugned order. The petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent within two weeks from today.” There is no doubt that in the present writ petition as well the same order (i.e. the one impugned in the aforesaid petition) has been challenged. Therefore, this writ petition is also dismissed in the light of the direction made in the judgment and order dated 5.11.2008. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that whereas the earlier writ petition was filed by the State Transport Authority, who had actually to decide the issue, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who wanted a transport permit but was denied the same and, therefore, although he has not filed any appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, but since the matter has to be seen afresh by the State Transport Authority, he may also be given a chance to plead his case before the said Authority. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is vehemently objected by the learned counsel for the respondent who has stated that he is not a party aggrieved nor he has filed an appeal and, therefore, his case cannot be heard by the State Transport Authority. Be that as it may, without giving any finding or observation in this regard, this Court leaves it open for the petitioner to approach the State Transport Authority and leaves it open for the State Transport Authority to either hear the petitioner or refuse to hear the petitioner as it thinks appropriate. With these directions, writ petition is dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.12.2008 Avneet