HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (c»No. 1385 of 2007 Petitioner Mod. Farooque, S/o Abdu! Rashid, Prop. New Samim Transport, Kharisia Road, Ambikapur, (C.G.) Versus State Transport,' Raipur (C.G.) ani ^ppellate Tribunal, others. 'ost for ordsr "4 ^r\rr? ""T-^UV i Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (c)No, 1385of_2_007 Petitioner Mod. Farooque, S/o Abdul Rash'sd, Prop. New Samim Transpoil, Kharisia Road, Ambikapur, (C.G.) Versus Respondents 2. State Transport Appeilate Tribur'a', Raipur (C.G.) Regionai Transport Authority at Bilaspur /r' r^ ^ (iwf.^?.J 3. Secretary,R.T.A.,Bilaspur(C.G.) 4. Vijay Kurnar Garg, S/o Tejuram Garg, 3us Operator, R/o Pathai Gaon, Distt. Jaspur (C.G.) 5. Noore Haque, Bus Operator, R/o Kharigarh Naka, Ambikapur (C.G.) 6. Giyaui 'Haque, Bus Opsrator, R/o Kharisia Naka, Amb!J<apur(C.G.) 7. Step'nan Khal'KO, Bus Operator, Am&ikapur (C.G.) WRIT PETiTiON UNDER ARTICLE 228 OF THE CONST1TUT10N OF JNDiA SinaJe Bench Hon'bte Mr. uUstics Satlsh K. Agnihotr 'rssent: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitionsr. Mr. Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State.i'respondents No. 2 and 3 Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No, 4. f ^ni? i'" .<i- (Passed on this ^'day ofAprij,2 iT^ }S j By this petifion, t'ne petitioner has chaiiengsd ths iegality and vaiidity of the order clated 18.1.2007 (Annexure P/6), passed by the State Transport Appeiiate Tribuna' (hereinafter referred to as "ths STAT"), Raipur In ! No. 72/06. The indisputabie facts in nutsheil are that -the respondent No. 4 is a private bus ownsr. He appiied for ternporary permit on the route i.e. Jashpur to Raigarh from 15.11.2006 to 14.03.2007 befors ths Rsgions! Transport Authority (hereinaftsr referred io as "ths RTA"), Biiaspur, whish was reiected on 27.11.2006 (Annexure P/5). ^s^^^^s: >. 3. The respondent No. 4 filed an appeal, being Appeal No. 72/06, before the STAT, Raipur, wherein the STAT held that the Secretary, RTA cannot decline to reject temporary permit, keeping in view the provisions of sub-section (1) (C-) and (D) ofSection 87 ofthe iVlotor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1988"}. It was further held that the secretary, Additional Secretary or Assistant Secretary is empowered under sub-section (1) (C) and (D) of Section 87 of the Act, 1988 to issue permit, but in case of grant of temporary permlt under the provisions of sub-section (1) (C) and (D) ofSection 87 ofthe Act, 1988, approval ofthe State Transport Authority is a necessary condition. 4. in the present case, sincs the temporary permltwas not granted, there is no necessity to o'otain approvai of the State Transport Authorifrv. The STAT found that the appiication fiied by the respondent No. 4 v/as rejected on t'ne ground that on the date of hearing, the appSicant was not present and there is no documsnt to prove that 'ne had any intimatlon about the date of hearing. !n view of that, keeping in visw the requirement of more buses on occasicn of mamages and on various Tes'tivals, the Secretary, RTA was directed to grant temporary permit w.e.f. 6.11 .2006. The period oftemooran/ Derrnit in auestion has come to an end on 14.3.2007. 5. !Vir. B.P. Gupta, iearned counse! appearing for the petitioner v»ou!d submit that the RTA has to consider the facts to the extent that the route is specifled and notified, there are not more than five permits at a time, there is not any tax due, thece is no case pendlng or there is no a clash oftime. The STAT, \vithout considering al! the aspeets, has directed the Secretary, RTA to grant the permit vrith rstrospective effect. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counse! appearing for the respondent No. 4 wouid submit that the RTA has granted fresh permit for the period of 1.4.2007 to 30.4.2007 on the basis of the new application. The petition has become infructuous, as the tims granted eariier has aiready come to an end. 7. Having considered submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the pieadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the application for temporary permit was for the period of 15.11.2006 to 14.3.2007 which has come to an end. The STAT, without having considered a!l necessary requirements for grant of permit, 'nas no jurisdiction to direct the RTA to grant the permit for the period Vi'hich had already come to an end. Thus, the impugned order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and set aside. The rsspondent No. 4 is at iiberty to make a fresh appiication for grant of ternporary permit 'oefore the RTA, Bi!aspur s.nd the same may be considered in accordance with la'A' by t'ne RTA, Bilsspur. 8. Th'ss petition is accordingiy aliowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri fcidi'si^s^