1-1 IXTHE HIGH COURT QF^aUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) -> WRIT PETITION.NO. OF 2005 p^ > BETWEEN ptese" ^•<"r"^^ ....--^"ca.^-^"". iSW.^"- ^^.....••-- ••••";'*^ ^-<?r^ Ramdutt Joshi S/o Haridutt Joshi, a.ged about 31 years, resident of Village Kapu, Police Station Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarl-i (CG). PETITIONER 1- The State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Department ofTransport Departrnent ,Mantralay, Chhattisgarh, D.K.S. Building, Raipur 2- The State Transport Appellate Tribuna!,Chhattlsgarh, through its President, State Transport Appeiiate Tribunal, Raipur (CG). 3- The Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, through its Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Raipur 4- Raj Klshore Singh, resident of Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh (CG). ^^~—^. .^'Ctrgff'"-' RESPONDENTS inm"~<' ^j-'s; ^:.; .^J.j;]^—/.^ g'.il' .:''i^tll .'^ s!B!^H::l5sfe i|3R^?[^ff^' ;[!^^.^^. li^" ^^'••*ft<'tKi^,-@'fflWts,^stralj,<,' ^,......t^.c..J.^&^:,.:.., ^TOR ^jfeg sg^i 08.02.2005 Shri Awadh.Tripathi Shri Su:mesh B;aj.aj, responden.t No. 1 to 3, • The petifioner has ]: Art'icle 226/227 of'ttie'Co^^titution of Inclia being aggrieved bv the order :'dated 17.1,) Appellate •Trib'unal^, Raipt( wberebv th e STAT revers ed Transport Authprity, Raipij since the petjtaoner hefee} Pathalgaon to Raigarh, th[ rou fe, th'e RTA was^: n'of en that route from^Kumichuhj the Govemmen|f, but ftie| =»st*lE?l-^f^f*+^l ;^f ^1-^R^H ^FSTfgH^sn^i : counsel for the petitioner. Deputy GayeFnment Advocafe for referred this wrif petition - under |2(T65 passed by State Transport |r •in';Revision .Case Nd.289./.20Q4 1 the ordei- passed |r on.20.7.2004 on by the Regional ;the. ground that n. had not' applied. for the .roufe RTA h'as granted permit for' the said roufe, tliereEQre witll<{ut havirig any applicatio& fQF that titled'.to graht the permiti' I have lie.ard the le^rned coyrisel for .th'e pa/rties on admission. '. / Learried coynsel for l!|he ;pefi:fi:oner argyed that it is true l to Rai:garh was not sanctiorie:d bv route Pathalgaon to Ra.igarh ' is already'existing.|ancl,'pn'tlte reqyest^of the petifioner heTein.- 'the 'permit was' granted by {nodifsring tKe requesf arid thaf^was •B'ifhin the corripetenceof 'tjtie'RTA'; tl'ierefore, impUgned orcieF' is perverse. Learned CQ;uns^l for fhe petitioner relied uptMi ;t!Ile:: decision of A.llaliaIiad'Higli'G.ourt.^epoFted in AIR^li'siS&J'l'JB^ Anil Kumar 'AlaaFwal andiioteheFS' Vs..,' - The' : Sfate 'Transioial'fc .XppeIIate •Trib;yh:al;: -'H,...R..^fiL!i(i.: tttfogrs rey<3rfedyin'MK'^ i'^^WaS'SSS^ :f^TSaravS^ .artd., alSo.'the^MeciSilS® Ga^cu^^.^ReB^Effial^Wa.ri^^offiiiBMci'Eity^ •j^^y^ @,^;a:81i!i':; ;: ;.^:ll,jli|s .WQSS KB'iia ffllSlltl 'ss ss iililf Ha ar 1-BC—7E .^^••<lltl:le1<1; 'S^teFI'g.-^f^I ^....^.^;..;..^&. 13)i^!I W Ks-li* i?^ff;3TI^?T S»i^i|<ti 'RTOR flfCT 311^1 In this co;nnection Section 72 of the MotoT "prorided that na such pe jihe'proviso to sub-secfion (1) of 1/ehicles Act, 1988 envisages that 'fmit shall be''granted' in respect of petitioner for : the i-oufe that the appJ:ielattc?h ibr t& applicable in the present 'WifwN 'qTOcff •S fs^S tf5R?R ^sifwsn^i ' ;: an.y roufe or area nat sp^cified in-fhe application'.'ln the present case, the petitione|rrnoved an applicatiori only for the route Kumiehua:.to 'RaigarJT,,: no .application was, ±nade by the 'a'tth'algabn to Raigarh. Even the petifioner^has.not prqduQ^d anything on record which shows route Patthalgaon to Raigarh was filed oii behalf of the petjitioner. As far as: the request for modification is- eoncem4d, the case laws cited by. ,the petitioner are: distineuislbable on facts and tftey are ,not case. • Moreover, it ia st:ated; that buses are atreadv ,dpeTa1|ing ori' tKe rbyte Patfhatgaon : to Raigarh .anQ ttie. petifiorjer' has''n.ot. brou'gfat anything on record which goes to sHowl said roate wh.ich entitles \ ;; In view ;o:f the above, passed by the STAT doe^ thaf there was any vacancy on the he RTA to grant permit. , ; ;; I am of the opinion that the order not suffer froiTi anv illeRality or irregularity. 'The pefitio^ is liable fo be dismissed and aecordingly, 'it-is diSmiss^d^af the^admission sfage i;fself. Conseqaently, M.fW.g'P. No. 289/05 85 r.A.No.702/05also stand disposed of. • ; j' • . • __—— Sdl- L.C.Bhadoo Judge