’ w.P.. (Art 227) No. $1\ ‘6 of 2011 PETITIONER ‘/ Kanker Roadways, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.) through its Managing Paitner, Preetam Singh Garcha, aged about 61 years, Slo Shri Jogender Singh Garcha R/o Civil Lines Raipur (06.) VERSUS State Transport Appeliate Tribunal Raipur (C.G.) Secretary State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh at Raipur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh at Raipur (C.G.) Arti Jaiswal, Wlo Late B.L.Jaiswal, R/o Gulmoher Residency, North Civil Line, Jabalpur (M.P.) RESPONDENTS /1 .: WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The following is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the petitioner :- Iv IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BILASPUR 1C.G.} HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. WRIT PETITION (227} NO.2I 25i2011 PETITIONER Kanker Roadways Versus RESPONDENTS State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others «I Present: - Shri Shailendra Bajpai, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. s GRAL ORDER (Passed on 25‘“ ofApriI, 2011 ) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged Iegality and validity of order dated 5/4/2011 passed in revision No. 49/11 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. . The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is holding regular stage carriage permit on route - Raipur to Jabalpur vide permit - Annexure P/2. Respondent No.4 applied for grant of temporary permit on the route - Jabaipur to Raipur. The State Transport authority in the State of i\II.P., granted temporary permit to respondent No.4, in respect of the period from 1/3/2011 to 30/4/11 and thereafter, respondent No.4 submitted the permit for counter signature as per the provisions of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, 1988. Upon publication of notice, the petitioner submitted his objection. The objection was rejected and respondent No.2 counter signed the temporary permit granted in favour of a respondent No.4, aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred revision, which has been dismissed. 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent No.2 and 3 committed iHegality in counter signing the permit issued in favour of respondent No.4 because there does not exists any vacancy in the route. He submits that as per the agreement between the State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Madhya Pradesh, there are oniy six vacancies, against which, temporary / permanent permits for operation in the given route could be aiiowed. He submits that there are aiready four permits granted to the State Road Transport Corporation of MP. and in addition to that, two permits have already been granted. Therefore, there was no vacancy to aiiow any permit to be granted to respondent No.4 on the same route. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier also on two occasions, the application for counter signature was rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy in the available route because there are already existing six permits but the same has now been ignored and the permit i granted in favour of respondent No.4, has been counter signed by the State authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent No.2 has counter‘signed without any proposal or remarks, which show that the exercise of counter signature has been undertaken without appiication of mind. lt is also submitted that while allowing respondent No.4 to operate on the given L4 route by counter signing permit issued in its favour, the time table has been changed, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and there is possibility of ciash. \. r 4, As far as, first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been elaborately stated in the order passed in revision as also in the note-sheets by which, objections have been considered by respondent No.2 and 3 that the State Road Transport Corporation of MP. have stopped operation of its vehicle and permits have aiready been surrendered and therefore, there is no operation of buses by the MP. State Road Transport Corporation. The note-sheets of respondent No.2, in the matter of consideration of objection also show that this aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration both by respondent No2 as weil as by the revisionai authority to come to the conciusion that on account of non-operation of vehicte of MP. State Road Transport Corporation and surrender of its permit, vacancies are availabie and it cannot be said that vacancies are available. The finding recorded in that regard, while rejecting the objection of the petitioner as also while dismissing his revision, cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the provisions of law. 5. As far as other grounds that no remarks have been made by respondent No.2 and rejection of objection is non—speaking, the same does not hold merit. A perusal of Annexure PI5 shows that before proceeding to counter signature, the permit granted in favour of respondent No.4 by the iviadhya Pradesh authorities, the objections were not only taken into consideration, but were decided and detailed reasons have been recorded in respect of obiections made bv. the petitioner. The order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has aiso been taken into consideration. Respondent No.2 has alsotaken into consideration that on account of non-operation of buses by' MP. State Road ‘ Transport Corporation since October, 2010 and surrender of four permanent permits before the State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, there is no impediment to counter sign. Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent No.2 did not appiy its mind to various aspects of the matter and objections. Yet anpther submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier on two occasions, respondents 2 and 3 refused to counter sign on the ground that there existed and in operation, six permits including four permits of MP. State Road Transport Corporation. Therefore, counter signature in the present case is not justified, also deserves rejection. The two orders passed earlier on 26/8/2010 and 20/12/10 show that the counter signature was refused by taking into consideration that four permits of MP. State Road Transport Corporation and two permits to provide operators have been issued. However, in the present case, the transport authority as well as the appetlate authority have given due weight to the fact that the 8tate Road Transport Corporation of MP. has surrendered four permanent permits before the State authority of M.P. at Gwalior. 6. The objections with regard to change in time schedule though has been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to how the time schedule violates any of the provisions of law or any statutory guidelines with regard to the time schedule, in the matter of operation of buses in the route concerned. 7. in the result, l do not find that the revisiona! authority has acted with any perversity or has committed any jurisdictional error, so as to warrant interference by this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed .V.... , . r ..........‘ Sd/— Manindra Mona“ Shrivastava Judge Daepi i @ 7 V