PETITIONER . %’ 0 SINGLE BENCH BILASPUR (C.G_.1 x Wid. Hasan Khan, aged about 55 years, S/o Ali Ahmed Khan, Bus Operator, R/o Old High Court Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 1’9" VERSUS State Transport Appetlate .Tribunai D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority, Baster Division, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Baster Division, Jagdaipur (C.G,) Daijit Singh, S/o Teja Singh Through Mahendra Travels, Bus Stand Pandri Raipur (C.G.) all” IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT w.P. (Art 227) No. Gallo or 2011 RES?ONDENTS fate Tmasmrt Ameilaie Tribunal & Others (Wrii Petifion under Article 22? Of the Constitution of india) Singie Bench : Hon‘Me Shri Sati$h K. Agnihotri‘ J. F’resem :— Shri Aman Kesharwani, Advocaie for the peiitioner. Shri Shas‘nank Thakw. Pane} Lawyer far the State CRDER (Passed on mis 19m day 0f October, 201 1) 1. Chanenge in this peiition is ta ihe om‘er dated 20m May, 2011 (Annexure P4), passed by the State Transport AppeHate Tribunai, Raipur (for ShOIT "STA T”) in Revision No.84/1 O. 2. The main comemion 0f the learned couneei appearing fer {he peti‘zioner is that the impugned arder is bed in law on account of the fact that the respondent No.4 was required to deposit fee of Rs.1500/—\ however, the respondent No4 haoi deposi‘ied oniy a sum of Rs.1000/— alongwiih the anoiicetion {or grant of permii. Thus, the finding ot‘ the STAT is bad and deserves to be dismissed 3. The second ground raised by the peiitioner is that in the order dated 26m August, 2308. passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-S), it was mentioned that the permit shaii be vaiid oniy after it is oountersigned by the Regionei Transport Authoritv‘ Biiaspur. The respondent No.4 is plying the vehioie Without oompiying with the condition No.8 in the order dated 26m August. 2008 (Annexure P—5). The STAT having considered the objection raised by the petitioner. came to the conclusion that the respondent No.4 made an application tor grant of permit on 25th May, 2098 and at the relevant point oi time? the tee prescribed was Rs.1000/—. The fee was enhanced thereafter by notification dated 13‘“ June, 2&08. Thus. the contention ot ieamed oounsei for the petitioner that the requistte tee was not deposited was not found to be correct. ln respeot HIGH CCURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASF‘UR WR§T PETITION (227) NO.‘6220 OF 2011 PETlTiONER Mohd. Hasam Khan Versus #45” of compXiance sf condition No.8, it was heid that it was a typographical mis‘ake. 4. On perusal of the orders and decuments appended thereto, it appears that the finding of the Tribunai on the firsi submission of the petitioner is correct and dues mi warrant any interference. With regard to ihe second conteniion since the canditicn is already prescribed in the order passed by me Regionai Transport Author‘ny, which has been upheld by ihe Siaie Transpori Appeilaie Tribunai, there is no exemption from not compliance with the condiiion No.8 and the respondent No.4 is bound to comply wiih all terms and conditions as prescribed in the order dated 26m Augusi, 2638, passed by the Regional Transpon’ Auihoriiy. s 5r ln View of foregoing, there is no merit in the caser and as such, ihe writ dug oeiiiion is dismissed. Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge ashok