W1 1r o r HIGH COURT OF CHHA’ITISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 6057 of 2006 SB: Hon’ble MrrJustice Batish K. Amihotti, J Shri B. K. Rawat, Advocate for the peiih‘oner. Shn' Utkarsh Vanna, Govt. Advocate for the mspondent No.2. Shn' B. P. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on this 20th day of February, 2007) 1. By way of this petition’the peh'u'oner impugne the cider dated 5.9.2005 (Annexum P/4) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision No. 129/2006, as also‘the onier dated 3.4.2006 (Annemxe 13/2)‘ passed by the Regional Transport Authon'ty, Raipur. . Leamed counsel appearing for the Iespondent No.2 fairly submits that With'regard to the change of liming, Metent than the timings published, no opportunity of hearing was ah‘orded ‘ to the pen‘tioner, though other» objectors were present and agreed for the grant of timing and vide order dated 3.4.2006 (Annexare Pl 2) the permission was granted to the respondent No.3 forrunnjngstage carriageas under:- “mwidaddmmdgqmdtwwmam w,mmma§mdmdmmm, mwdW$§Wwmamm1w admnWaAamHWwdimeWmnwmehm Pen'h‘oner Durga MotormScrvicc, Ambikapur State Transpmt Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur //. Thakur / 0 77$WI§WHEY$WWWWQNI$WW Wmai$wxmmm%:— 1 Wm$twmmi€m:— 14.32 mum 20.15% 12.12 3mm 09.15 05.50 man?! ” 3. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not heard on the change of timings other than the published 1imjngs in the notice, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served if the petitioner along with all concerned are given an opportunity for putting foxward their cases befoxe the respondent No.2 for reconsidering the onier dated 3.4.2006 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. In View of the aforestated submissionsjhe order dated 5.9.2005 (Annexme PI4) and the order dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure P12) are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattis’garm Raipur to consider this matter attesh, within a period of two weeks, after issuing proper notice to all the concerned. In the meantime the respondent No.3 would be permitted to operate as per the order dated 3.4.2006. With the above observations, the matter stands allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs. / Certitied copy, as per Rules. i Sdl- i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge i