AF^ „./'..„... H1GH COURT OF JUDtCATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR W.P.(C) No. 4333 of 2006 PeStioner Respondents PrjtPalSJnghehatia Vereus State Transport Appeltate Tribunal, Raipur & others Post for order on il^larch, 2007. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR W.P.ffi) No. 4333 of 2006 Petifener Prit Pal Slngh Bhate, son of fate Shri H. S. Bhatia, aged about 47 yeare, residence of near Bus stand Patthalgaon, Distrjct Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Veraus Respondente 1. State Transport Appeltate Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. R. T. A. ChhaBsgarh, Raipur. 3. Secretary, R.T.A., Bilaspur, Chhattisgarti. . 4. Ghanshyam Sir®h,Kabir Chowlc, Jute Milt, Road, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5. Nand Kishore Gupta, Through Jagdish Gupia, Holder of Generaj Power of Attomey, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattjsgarh. SB: Hon'bte Mr JusticeSatish K. Agnihotri, J Shri B. K. Rawar, Advocate forftie peiitioner. Smt. Anju Ahuja, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocats for the respondente No. 4 and 5. ORDER ^; _ (Passed on this 2/ dayofMarch. 2007) The following ordsr of the Courtis passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. By this petition fited under Arficte 226 of the Constitufion of India, the petitioner chailenges the legality and validity of the order dated 27.7.2006 passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority (S.T.A.T.) Raipur in Revision No. 161/2005 (filed bythe respondent No.4) and 18CV2(X35 (filed by the respondent No.5), whereunder the stage carriage pennit No. 2310/B/05, for plying stage cam'age on the route between Jashpur and Durg, granted by the Regionaf Transport Authority (R.TA), Bilaspur vide order dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure P/1), was canceited. 2. The S.T.A.T. cancelled the said stage carriage permit, granted for a period of five years, on the ground Biat in th®route there is no mention of stoppage at Sarangarh and Patthalgaon. The said permit does not •iS- B» VK B"' ^-. mention any route stoppages with timings, except departurs from Jashpur, arrivsl at Durg and departure from Dyrg, arrival at Jashpur. The power to grant stoppage and timing was assigned to the Secretary of the Rsgional Transport OfRce, Bilaspur Division. Thus, the permit was granted in contravention vntti the prowsions of Secfion 68(3) (ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as no such route from Durg to Jashpur and vice versa Jashpur to Durg, withoutstoppage, has been stipulated by the Govemment. The revision was ftirther altowed on other ground that no opportun'rty of hearing wift regard to the fixing of timing, other than fte {ime apptied by the permit holder was given to the objectors. The S.T.A.T. has accordingly ailowed the revision and cancsllsd the permit No. 2310/B/05 granted by the R.T.A. Bilaspur. 3. I have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perused the pteadings and documents appended thereto. The route specifisd under the provisions of Section 680) (ca) is Durg to Jashpur wi stoppage at Raipur, Saraipali, Sarangarh. Raigarh. Patthalgaon. Kunkuri vide notsfication dated 14 June, 200'i (Annexur^'/3). Thare is no specified route from Durg to Jashpur or vice verea, \B«thouthaving any stoppages in between. Thus, the finding of the S.T.A.T. is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity, illegaiity or irregularity. 4. Witti regard to ttie grant of stoppages by ths ordsrof the Secretary, (at page 14 of the petition), the same is also mttiout jurisdiction as the Secretary has no power to specify points of stoppages and fiming. Rute 67 of fce Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rutes. 1994 provides for deiegation of powers by the Regional Transport Authority to Secretary, which does not empower ttie Secretary to fbc and determine stoppagss and tte time, in case of grant of permit under e provisions thereof. Thus, the orcter of the R.T.A. respondent No.3 tothe effect 8iat the stoppage in between and timing shai! be issued by the Secretary is excessive delegation. Rule 67 reads as under:- —— -—„ , "S7. Delegation of powere by Regfona! Transport Authorit/.-(1) A Regiona! Transport Authority may, by general or special resolution recorded in its proceedings and subject to such restricttons limitations and conditions as may be speciffed, delegate to Chairman. Secretery, Additional Secretary, or Assistant Secrstary ofths Authority all or any of the following powers, nameiy: (a)togrant, reftiss or rsnew a private ssrvice vehicle pennit under sub-secBon (1) of section 76; (b) te grant renew or refuse goods carriage psrmit undsr secGon 79; (c) to renew goods carriage permit under secUon 81; (d) to permit ths reptacsmentof one vshicfe by another; under sectton83; (e5 to suspend a permit under section ^ or to recover from the holder thereof the sum of money agreed upon in accordance with sub-section (5) of ths said seciion; (O to grant or refuse to grant a temporary permit under sscSon 87 or under sub-section (7) and (8) of secSon 88, as the case may be. (g) toGountersign a temporar/ permit under sub-section (1) of section 88 or to attach or vary conditions thersof under sub- secSon (1) and (3) offte said SecSon; (h) to grant, renew and refuse the nationa! permit for goods carriage undersub-sectioR (12) ofsecfen 88; (i) to srant, refuse or renev/ licences of Agente under rute 120 and 132 or to suspend a ifcence under ruie 128 or to recover from the holder thereof sum of money agreed upon in lieu of suspension; (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx socx xxx" 5, The last contenti'on of the petftioner that a person i.e. the respondent No.4 has no locus stendi to chaltenge the permit as he has noS fited any objecfion. learned counsel relied cn a decision of Hon'btethe Supreme Court in Mithliesh Garg etc. ete. Vs. Union of Indja and others ete. ete. (AIR 1992SC 443). The facte of that case are not applicabte to the facte of the present case. The respondsnt No,3 has excseded his jurisdiction by granting stage camage permit in favour of the petifioner from Jashpur to Durg and wce versa, which is not a specified rout. The route is specified as per the notiflcation dated 14.6.2001 with stoppages. which does not find place in the stage carriage permit granted by the respondent No.3 i.e. Durg to Jashpur and Jashpur to Durg. Thus, when apparently the authority has exceeded in ite jurisdietion, the Tribunal/Court cannot close ite eyes on the apparent error on the face of it. Thus, the order passed by the S.T.A.T. is unexceptionable. It does not warrant any interference in exereise of the powere of judiciat review under Articte 226 of Uie Constitution of India. 6. fis a result, for ttie reasons stated hereinabove, thi's petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge