K •1EGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUi 3LE OM'i ^ •ITIONEI Writ Pstition No.4487 of200'3 Guruprit Slngh Bawra, S/o Tejpai Singh Bawra, aged about 38 years. New iav/ra Trnasport, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C-.G.) Vs. 1. Regionai Transport Authority, D.K.S. Shawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Secretary, Regional Transport Authorsty, Link Road, Bllaspur (C.G.O 3. Gupt Narayan Prasad Jalswal, S/'o Late Kishan Prasad Jaiswal, Sattipara, Ambikapur, DisS. Sarguja (C.G.) 4. State Transport Appeiiate Tribunai, Chhattisgar'n, Ghari Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) Presenf and 4. Shri A.K. Shrivatava, !earned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A for the respondents 1, 2 Shri Santosh Gupta, iearned counsei for respondent No.3. (Passed on 24"' August, 2005) On an appiication made by the third respondent for grant of a fresh regular permit on route Khongapani to Rarrianujganj, Via - IVlanendragarh, Nagpur, Surajpur, Ambikapur and back, the Regionai Transport Authority having gone through the required procedure contemplated under the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 (for short 'the AcS') and the Rules framed thereunder, by Its ordsr dated 27/03/2006, granted regular Permit No.2538/3/2006 to the third respondent restricting the permit for the route Manendragarh to Ramanujganj, Via-Arnbikapur. Calling in question the correctness of the above order ofthe first respondsnt, the petitioner herein preferred revislon under SecSion 90 of the Act to the S.T.A.T. contending that since the third respondent had appiied for the reguiar permif on route Khongapani to Ramanujganj, Vla - Manendragarh, Nagpur, Surajpur, Ambikapur and back, the order of the flrst respondent granting permit only F-- I .i/y for the route Manandragarh to Ramanujganj, Via-Ambikapur is iiiegal. it was also contended that on receipt of the application of the third respondent, the same was pubilshed as it is for grant of permit on the route Khongapani to Ramanujganj, Vla - Manendragarh, Nagpur, Sursjpur, Ambikapur & back and not on the route Manandragarh to Ramanujganj, Via-Ambikapur. The S.T.A.T. without finding any merit in the above contentions dismissed the Revlsion by its order dated 18/07/2006. Hence, this writ petition. (2) I heard learned counsel for the parties. The ground urged before the STAT and reiterated before the Court is quite fallaclous. !t is not that there is any chsnge in the routs mentioned by the Shird respondent in his appiicatlon. The first respondent for an obvious reason, th.e reason being that the route from Khongapani to Manendragarh was not formulated and having regard to the settied position in Saw, did not rightiy grant the permit with regard to the above stretch of the route. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised before the Court. !t also needs to be noticsd that under sub-Section (1) of Secfion 72 of the Act, the Reglonal Transport Authority has undeniabty the power to grant permit as sought 'm an application or with such modification as it deems fit. The power exereised by the first respondent to grant reguiar permit on the routs oniy from Manandragarh to Ramanujganj squareiy faiis within ths power of the first respondent as contemplated under sub-Section (1) of Sectlon 72 of the Act. Looking from that angie aiso, the power exercised by the first respondent cannot be faulted. The writ pstition is devoid of merit and it !s accordinoSy dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ^ h- E^^^^^^'^'iS^c'SSS&^S^&SSis^^lS^iSiSSSSS'SJBSisS/tSeiSaiSiiKi^SSSSSS^^