IN TEIE HtGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) j W.P.NO. 1330/2006 PETITIONER , ^-;^ Mohd. Shahabuddin, S/o Shri Mohd. ,t/^ fi>v.-:'"y' .^'' Kammjama, aged 38 years, R/o ^.'A'^L.--'"' ^ff?\^~ \°. ^p Mahamaya road, Ambikapur (C.G.) ^ y <>• RESPONDENTS Vs -(1) State of chhattisgarh, through ^ Secretaiy Department of Transport D.K.S. BhawanRaipur (C.G.) State (2) Secretaiy, <C^>' c^' Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Transport r^ / -^s ~"^'''~ *ty .;' 5^ ""-vlsS\ 'vs^ T5W,a \WI 0,^(3) Secretary, State Transport Authority, x Ranchi. (4) Supritendent of poUce, Daltenganj (Jharkhand) (5) Supritendent of police, Ambikapur (C.G.) (6)Incharge border checkpost, Ramanunjganj (C.G.) (7) Bihari Prasad, bus operator power house road, Ramanunjganj (C.G.) ^g? "6^. SStRamprasiddha Singh, bus operator, Kondatarai, Distt.-Raigarh (C.G.) (9)Rajkishore singh, bus operator, jute " miU road, Kabir chowk, Raigarh (C.G.) (lO)Hridyanand Tiwari, bus operator, Namnakala, Ambikapur (C.G.) (ll)Rajendra Singh Chabra, bus operator, Namnakala, Ambikapur (C.G.) (12)Dhananjay Soni, bus operator, *'-'' Ramanunjganj (C.G.) (13)Dista-ict Transport Of&cer, Gadwa, (Jharkhand) (14)8upritendent of police, Gadwa, *'' (Jharkhand) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (^a^^4>) IUBWKSV y (8&8 ndW 8961.) sjai<»o '?| (BuojBay 'eAqpedn 'd'a •sA|edo4g pBoy ^e»s 4s^»ejd e<qpew ^o janeut 8|q,uoH jo ^uouiSpnr '(i9ts ndW 086t)| tJOdsuBJj. sws 'SA J84»oue <? y> jeneui ©IBui pajspuaj ysepad B<4PftV ay( uo SOUBJISJ siq paoqd jsuogiiod 4 jsansq sq ueo s»uu8d'jeijtg pue ui tuaiueaiBe 3}e}S-je(U! AUB Buioq sj^i (BBUEisqns sifl uo uoisiosp JQ| ssAiAins ||js pousd aifl yBnoifl }eiff pspuotuoo sai.K^a^ J8|seg stfl ll»s Aiejoduia} j<y peiidde jsu<^|i}gd q3ii|M pou®d•Aijjoi||nv yodsueii eifl Aq UMop ei4 jost sjiuusd Aiejoduis} jo.( jauoHsad (8 pue 900Z-£0-tS<4 9002-eO-tO w>41 Aiejoduist sqi <et(} aiqisusiso si fl 'pj pjoa^j •^•ONtuspuodssj JOt s(uapuodsej/8W9 K9 w^MBf leued] •jauoigtsd eifl joif |asunoo 'j U^U£hpjte S^ •>1»1»]'> P'S] ^ (l-lhlh 1-^UJfcltto jndi^j 'Atuoiflnv »JodsuBJi 'qjeBBiieg 'uoiiejodjoo sifi ui psjapusj »jnoo xedy I sjaqto y joi|BMg 'Atuo^nv puni|ntu|B9 |e|)|e(ueyr p ynoo qBfH y> tuaiuBpnf j0!i issunoo p^uJBa^ ^^BsgpBiiyo JD s»e»ssifl ussAiqsq j^ift tnoqiiM jeifisyM,, uoitssnb uoitgsd sifl yiq 'pejidxa sey sifl JQ| issunoo p^UJe^^ •3|{>eq BUO) e psuidxe sAey sjiuuod pouad pue s^iuuod asoifl y> p^uin) useq sey pousd presejo^e y> uojieaidde "SIUB siues sifl eift jo^ psnssi e^8«suuued eq» yi |esnjed uioy •PJBSH s»i>apuodsajjeiflo jo^ &UON Dssunoo lni|Bg |iuns ms •9pues'?roN 'Aspued !(ed!0 ""X Ijauuj. ueqoM pueuv MI|S 84» pojied sowiEt-rz BS^ttyaiiaatt^ue 'S'OtoJ OOZ i-l».J. . . .. ttelhyi lUhlh tteli^ IAbl >K»ll<.>y '»>1,^(J1®'1?1->IMI»- tap ua)t»ifcihKs IJ;^IK> ifeii-y J^Ii^UE ZZ-3H-IX XI-HC-22 3^ •<<Nlcl<<, ®TO+I'I<°,Rdltiy ^iHnia»*iia) s? ^l^^ 200 R()«d sn^r^ii 6;IRi31I^T *4i»hVf?3 '.'. ^. an^TgTOTWdf^fT Kumar & another Vs. Reg| another (AIR 1999 SC 38 ^ exisfing inter-state route In oppi^natfon, counsel permits aranted by the Authoritj State of Bihar, therefore, in public, temporary pennits are the Motor Vehictes Act, 1988. ^iwfepft^ wn?fl'ff fecfl'dSreerc ^si^rsn^r |onal Transport Authority, Bikaner & •and contended that without there being grant ^ftemporary permits are llfegal. for ttre State contended that ft®temporary ^ were subject to counter signature by e abs^nce ofagreementto meetthe need ofthe p^nnissitrie in accordance wjth Section 87 of Pefitioner in this petiUon Ijias prayed for grant oyfollovring relief :- "For issuance of respondente from to Dattenganj, Am Kandi betwsen ; Jharkhand withou writ or prohibition restrainlng the plying the stage camages on inter slate routes Man^ndragarh to Dattenganj, Raigarh aikapur to Daltenganu, Raigarh to he State of Chhafflsgarh and counier signature by tte State Transport Authority, Jharkhand and on the ground ttiat ttie grant of s^age camages permits were made without reciprocaf agreement and the grant is without junsdicBor( being vfolative of law laid down by the Supreme Opuit of India. It is ateo prayed that plyir^ ofthe buse^ of the respondents no.8 to 11 on intsr state routes '|mthout grant of counter signature in collusion with (he local police and in-charge of border check pos< is illegal and wthwrt jurisdiction and for that issu4/direct the respondents by writ of mandamus to res(rain such illegal operation. It is also prayed to dir^ct the respondents no.1 and 2 to execute the r^ripi grant the permit t< State Transport / •ocal agreement and accordingly the petitioner. The order ofttie kuthority, dated nil rejecfing the apptication ofthe rtetitioner be alsoquashed. (^y^) XI-HC-22 an^rw R-iiihan^i »Wbgf?(f 1 Raju <!•»!"ill'illcl'i), »Tflt<'is,Ki<'ii+iy ^...^.a^ (ht<ic(»""'"""""""""7Wt mWfTBrWqi 200 RM sn^T ?t<nw flfer 2 p^BConsr In the instant case, State Transport Appellate Tribi|inal approached this Court wherea^ should have raised all competent to hear appeal arej reftisal, even otherwise, ttie re( of all those temporary pennits was sought by the peCBoner hat In ttie resutt, the petifion accordinglydismissed. Howevbr, aggrievedby subsequent gran( he has raised herein, before appeal and revlsion and ateo to| +wfa41-) WH's(\ ff tet^ <Ri^i< SiSi^iTan^i wttrout invddng jurisdiction of the (hencefortti "ttie Tribunal"), has dirertly if he was aggnevwi by grant or refusal, he luestions before Bie Tribunal, wrtiich was revisfon against <he impugned grant and ief prayed fw rannot be granted as period and e period for which temporary permit already expired. deserves to be dtonissed and is r, in ftrture, petitioner may, tf adwsed and or reftisal, raise all those questions which the Tribunal w^ifch fe competent to hear determine those quesfens^ Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge