K ^^"^^ •^^ ^h^:'^ ft %p^- ^ i ^?7__ SINGIE BEWCH IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT ^BILASPURfC.G.) W.P.< No.......^»Yl........201Q t-- ^' PETITIONER :Sheetala Prasad Pahdey S/oP.L. Pandey, Aged 34 years, Resident of Sindhiya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS (1) (2)- (3) Regional Transport Authority, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) Chainlal KasarS/o Gulabchand Kasar Kota Colony, Raipur (C.G.) State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) ^- Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of mandamus of writ/direction or anv other apDroDriate writ. HTOH COIJRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1TA8PIJR WRIT PETmON (C) No. 2234 of2010 PETmONER RE.8PONDENT8 Sheetala Prasad Pandey. VRR8IJ8 Regional Transport Airthority & Others, WRIT PETITION LJNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE. CONSTITIJTION OFINDIA SB: Hon*Ne Shri Satisli K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ajay Shrivastava^ Advocate for the petitioner, Shri V.V.SJvIoorlhy^ D^puly Advocale General for Ihe Slale/ respondentNo^ 1. Despite sei-vice ofnotice, none appears 011 behaifofresposident No.2. ORDER (ORAI,) (Passed on 10 day ofOctober, 2011) 1. Challenge in tliis petition is to the order dated 19.01.2010 (Amiexiire P/l) whereby the appeal field by the respondeirt. No. 2 agamst the order dated 05J0.2CX)9, has been allowed, andtiie order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexiire P/2) passed by the respondent No. 3< whereby the application for mtervention filed by the petifioiier^ has been rejected, 2, Shri ShrivaMava^ leamed coimsel appearing for tlie petitioner submite that the respondent No, 2 made aii application before the Regional Transport Airthorily, Raipw, for change ofhis timisig and the same was rejected by order dated 05,10»2009,Isi an appeal filed by the respondent No. 2, withoirt affbrdmg an opportimity of hearing to the petitioner who is also m$mmg his bus on the same route, the appeal was allowed by the impugaed order dated 19.01.2010. 3, Heard leamed coimsel appearmg for the petitioiien pemsed tlse pleadings and docyments appended thereto^ 6. It appears that fhe respondent No, 3 i.e. tfae StMe Traasport Appellate Tribimal, without considering the application of the petitioner for mtervention^ iii its tme p^rspective and willioirt affording proper opportimity ofhearmg, has rejected the same on the ground that the case of the petitioBCT has already been considered properly. This is not the spirit of principles of natiiral justice. The petitioner, who is also plying his biis on the same route, is boimd to be affected by the ohange m time of the respondent No. 2^ tfae petitioner was a necessary party. Thiis, th@ impugned order dated 19,01,2010 (Asmexiire P/l) and 19,01,2010 (Asmexiire P/2) are qimshed, Th@ mattw is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the case a fresh, afier affordmg proper opportiimty of hearing to fhe parties concemed, and pass appropriate order^, Accordmdv, the writ petition is allowed to thc above ext^nt, No order asto costs, Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Amit