SW^E c-.^.v INTHE^HIGH CDUKT QF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATHSGARH) WRIT PETITION N0.'?7<yz7/2006. PETITIONER: •'v M/s Kanker Roadways (registered partnership firm) Through Managmg partner Preetam Singh Garcha, S/o Late Jogindar o^ - '"'/^^* Singh Garcha, aged about 59 years, residence '•^ ^" ^' ^iF' ^yy^ '^-" Respondents: .v c^ ^ of Civil Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur '2. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 3. Secretaiy, R.T.A., Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Payal Travels, through Managing Partner, Swaroop Chand Jain, residence of In front of District Court, Dui^, Chhattisgarh. 5. Manish Travels, Proprietoi- Manish Jain, residenee of In front of Dista-ict Court, Dui^, Chhattisgarh. o^,^w ' WRTT PETmON UNDER ART1CLE 2'26 OF THE CONSTITUTION_QE INDIA. HiGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTSSGARH : BILASPUR SiNGi-E BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi S.R. NAYAK, CJ. ^ RESPONDENTi Writ Petition No. 3704 OF 2006 M/s Kanker Roadways (registered partnership firm) Through Managing partner Preetam Singh Garcha, S/o Late Jogindar Singh Garcha, aged about 59 years, residence of Civil Line, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Vs. 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 2. Regional Transport Authority, ChhatSisgarh, Raipur. 3. Secretary, R.T.A., Gagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Payal Traveis, through Managins Partner, Swaroop Chand Jain, residence of !n front of District Court, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5. Manish Travels, Proprietor Manish Jain, residence of in front of District court, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Shri B.K. RawaS, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, iearned G.A. for respondents 1 to 3. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, iearned counsei for respondents 4 and5. (Passed on 26th Ju!y 2006) The petitioner vras granted stage carrlage permit No. 56/2003 by the Regiona! Transport Authority, Rajpur, the 2" respondent herein, vide order dated 11-05-2004 on the rouie Raipur to Bailadiia. The respondent -^- , /"I. Nos. 4 and 5 preferred a Revision No. 386/2004 under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicies Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S.T.A.T.). The S.TA.T. by its order dated 14-07-2006 canceiled the permit granted to the petitioner. The petitioner feeiing aggrieved by the above order of the S.T.A.T. has preferred this writ petition. 2. S have heard the iearned counsei for the parties, perused the pleadings of the parties and the grounds raised in their respective pleadings. 1 am of the opinion that on a short ground, canceitation of the permit granted in favour of the peSitioner by the S.T.A.T. coutd not be faulted with and therefore, there is no need for the Court to dea! with al! the grounds urged in the writ petition. Suffice it to state Uiat after the formation of the new Stete of Chhattisgarh, the subject route was formuiated under Section 68(3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicte Act 198S only on 14-06-2004, whereas, admittedly, the permit was granted with regard to the said route to the petitioner on 11-05-2004. On that ground itself, the permit granted in favour of the petitioner without their being formutation of the route couid not be sustained. Although it was contended by iearned counsei for the petitioner that the formuiation of the route vide notification dated 14-06-2004 was not necessary in view of the fact that the said route was formulated under Section 47(3) of the Repealed Act of 1939, that question need not be gone into in the present proceeding, because, the petitioner has not assailed the formulation of the said route under Section 68(3) (ca) of 1988 Act. The petitioner cannot be permitted to assail the correctness of the notiflcation dated 14-06-2004, which is a statutory instrument, indirectiy and without chaiienging the validity of the same. In .I fXS -3- conclusion, there is no ground to interfere with the order made by the S.T.A.T. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. t:.-> Sd/- Chief Justice ^' y