^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION No.S s^ -?~/2005 PETITIONER Ramesh Oupta, S/o. Shri Sukhu Gupta, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Station Road Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaly, Transporf Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority, Chhatti^arh, Raipur (C.G.) Mahboob Khan, R/o. Ramaniya Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Sanjay Kumar Ravate, S/o. Shri G.K. Ravate, R/o. Near House of Vishram Singh, Hanuman Nagar, Ward No.16, Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^^'" ..?^'/ ^J^y^ ^^••v" '^y'" ^•w" XI-HC-22 3TT^T^)T fq'li<t) 3TI^T SbHicb^cT f .^< 1 ^'- ^^ WNWT^W ^II^M^, ^T{1^ll(o, [sl^ll^y 311^1 ^5|ch My^SS^l ..-^......^..^^....^ 2005^ ra? f^^' 3n^T^<TrsaT^f?cr cbi<Ml<n<i{l^ HTfl^ff ^* te^ <F3t<^i< ^3r^IT3TI^T S-S-2006 Mr. B.K. Rawat, counsel for ^he petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thaki|r, Govt. Advocate for ttie Stete/respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Ajay Shrwastaw, couns^l for respondent No.4. Heard. By thts writ petition under ^rticte 226 of the Consfitutton of tndia, the petitioner has prayed for issuance |of a writ of mandamus direcsting the Regtonal Transport Authority, Raiipur to in|iate action under Section 86 of the lytotor Vehicles Act, for cancellation of sta^e carriage permit No.7/97. The case of fte petitioner |s tiiat he vwis granted stage csmriage pennit No.PSTB 34/95, which was valid| upto 8-12-2000. On expiry of permtt, the petltioner applled for renewal, bt^t the same was rejected by the Regionat Transport Authority, Raipur vide| order dated 23-4-2001. Thereafter, the petitioner fited W.P.No.1130/2001 |and this Court passed an order dlrecBng the RTA not to issue pemnit agains^ the isaid petitioner's permtt. During the pendency of that writ petition, a f^aud has been ptayed by or in ttie name of anotfier permit holder namely, M^htoob Khan who te holding pennit No.7^7. An appljcation jointly tn the nam^ of the petifioner and Mahboob Khan was moved before the RTA for interlchange of tlmlngs of the regular permite. Accordingly, that appUcation ws|s allowed on 19-5-2005anct thereafter. concealing ttie order of fiils Couft, regular permit has also been granted to respondent No.4 without giving ah^ notice or intimatfon to the petftioner. Mr. B.K. RawsA, learned clounsel for the pefitioner sutonNted ttiat by playing fraud wth the RTA, timingl thereafter, a new permft has been| of respondent No.3 has bewi changed, and granted to respondent No.4. Ther^ore, the jnstant petidon has been ffled for t|iking suitable actton under SecUon 86 of ttie / XI-HC-22 ^^ ^INId^, ^Tn<MJI^, f^^lK-iy 3TT^T HTRCf1T(bNlch ^rq^^> / ^.y.^i3>^s.?^_ \_ ^ ^ ...... .'. . .7T77T7.T7. . ^. ^O <3n^T^)T ^i<t)3Ty^T ^$OTf^^cf Soma ^ -...^ f/6? ^ <tf 3rn^Tg(<TTW^f?cT -2 rte -^ r'tH^-v.;'^"--:^ Motor Vehides Act for cancellation | cancel the ^ermit of re^ondent Noj4. The petifioner has approacl^ed facts to the notice of the RTA. notice of the RTA and if the RTA i41 approached this Court. Inthe circumstances, the pe|fttoner these facts to the notice of the RTAI and the law. Even thereafter, if the petfti^ner Court. With the oteervations aforeslaid, Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.^ disposed of. of stage carriage permft No.7/97, and ateo to cbi^f<n41^ ^i*iciT^*teT^'<fa<^i< ^3Tf^TT3Tl^n' ttiis Coiut direcUy without brtnglng above ought to have brought tfiese facte to tt»e not taking anyadion, then he ought to have to flrst approach the RTA bringir^g all RTA to proceed. in aceordance with is not satisfied, he can approach this t, the petifion ^ands disposed of. 989/2005 and I.A.No.66980005 also stand Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge (^y^)