L ‘y R, ,/'.<’ \»\i§x:){I-Hc—7s Wm W 200 mm (Wei) Wanw; rammm ' , WW WW WWW ¢ %Wm Petitioners have flied this puhlic interest litigation petition and prayed forr t direction to the respondents not shift the Transport Check Post from its present piace Bhagat Devri, Saraip ii, Distt. Mahasamund. Petitioner No.1 is a itioner No.2 is a businessman. Both of them are residents of Village-Bhag t Devri. They are apprehending that the State Govt. is pianning to shift th Transport Check Post from their Viliage- Bhagat Devri to other piace Bhoth Idih situated at Sambhalpur road. Their grievance is that by such shifting State will suffer huge loss of revenue as the proposed site is not approp iate for establishing check post as the transporters can easily avoid pas ing through the proposed site by using alternative route. , the petitioners have tiled document of Annexure P/1 being the details of evenue receipt between the year 1996 to 2000 when the check post was at Saraipali, and comparative figures for the period between 2001 and 2008-09 Vhen the check post was at Bhagat Devri. Distt. Mahasamund. Apart from the above document, the petitioners have also tiled newspaper cuttings, wherein s milar apprehensions have been expressed against the proposed shifting of the heck post. The instant petition is based on the apprehension of the petitioners that the State shall suffer huge. loss revenue if the Transport Check Post is shifted from its present location'Bh gat Devri. Though it has been pleaded in I journalist by profession, whereas To establish their contentio the petition that the/transporter ll avoid the proposed Transport Check Post by availing alternative route, h weVer, there is no specific pleading in the petition regarding existence of alternative route nor any document t t e s a XELXI-Hc 78 W m............................................‘.....’.m 20° mm (Wm WWW ' mmm 3 r Wwt‘fwm ammm substantiating the same has been tied. Correctness of the decision to shift the Transport Check Post is not a subject to judiciai review as the same‘is a poiicy decision to be taken by the conoe ‘ned department of the State Govt. We do not find any factual foundation in t instant petition to suspect that the alleged I decision is being taken with any u erior motive to benefit a chosen few at the cost of public exchequer. Apa from this, the petitioners have also not disclosed their identity‘so as to en ble us to decide that they are not wayfarer or oflicious intervener without any’ il 1terest or concern. For the aforesaid reasons. we dismiss this petition at the admission stage itself. 5d,_ Sd/- f ‘x Dhirendra Mishra 77 i 3 RN. CHANDRAKAR \ Judge Judge