^..^s-i^.^,t^.^ ^c^-t^;*CT--^<^^-^-^wn^rt''wr't^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE . AT BILASPUR. (C.G.l ^(90 W.P.{c)NO. /20JO PETITIONER: PLAINTiF. . RESPONDANTS: DEFENDANTS: Saif Khan, S/o Abdul Aziz Khan, aged about 30 years, Bus Operator, R/o Behind Vinay Lodge, Manendragafh, Dist. Korea, (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur 3- Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur 4. Irshad Ahmad, S/o Shri Iqbal Ahmad, Manendr^garh, Dist: Korea (C.G.) 5- Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur, Dist. Ambikapur (C.G.) 6. Secretary RTA Ambikapur, Dist. Ambikapur (C.G.) (Note: Respondent no.5 & 6 are not party 'in the impugned order but they are necessary party as they passed ^c original order) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :;l":'"13l' &^a^; tl HIGH COURT GF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmQN f0 No; 7490 of2010 pEnnoNER - PLAIMHFF "'*'*" v : ' . . -r. '''.^•' '• .' " RESPONDENTS DEFENDANTS SaifKhan. .'•^ERSUS' :;y '/-,,:-. ."•;:.•/':',.;' State Trajisport Appellate Tribunal & Qthers. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OFJHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA . SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Prese-nt: ShriB.P.Gupta, Advocate fbrthe petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.-l,;2,3,5:.and6. .,•:':.', '.•:'' ' ..:1::;.;:^.:,/':.:':'.:'"';';.' None ibrtheresporidentNo. 4, despiteserviceo^^^ .--------------•--•--.-••-•--•••.-••--•--••-----•-.--.---••-•---.-.-.----.----«»•.-,-,-•.-•..-••• ORDERIQRAL) (Passed on I8U1 day ofJuly, 2011) : 1. Challenge in this petition is to theorderdated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P/l) whereby fhe appeal of the respondent No. 4 filed before the respondent No. 1, has been allowed holding that the order dated 24.07.201Q, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondenf No. 4. •^•V.- ::-. . • ;• t;^'-.-:.-.. .. :' ;.-<. ..—••.-:•..»•. ..•..•^.-. ••'.•:....• ..'.' •• ,:'. '-.•.•,-; 2. Leamed counsel appearing for tlie petitioner submits that the ' respondent No.j I has not examined the availability of the requisite documents as on the date permit was granted to the resppndeirt No; 4 \'- :-' •• • ''•. " '•.'•'• ' ". . ... .. •• • • - • • .;. . . . • ^ . -.•..;••,.•. . . '.' . • . and the permit was obtained unlawfully. 3. Despite service of notice, none chooses to appear hpr is any representation made on Ibehalf ofthe respondetit No. 4. 4.ShriThakur,teamedState'counsdappearingfbrtheresp<mdent^^N^ '••2, 3, 5 and 6 stibmits that the best cc>urse would have been to remit ;. backthe matter to decide a fresh in view ofthe alleged contrQversy Le. lack of opportunity pf hearing and further allegation of the petitioner that the relevairt documeiits were nof ava No. 4 whenpermitwas granted to him. 5. Having Meard l^ the parties, pentsed pleadmgsand^documeiitsappendedtheretQ^it^ ^graiited^vi&eorderdate^ 22104.2010^^ the respondent No< 5 ^^ ^ respondentNo.^withputtherebeingproperdoc^ pjermit was cancelled vide order dated 26.07.2010. Thes^ * challenged hy the respondenf No. 4 befbre the respQndent No, 1 ut an appeal wMch^s allbwedh heardbefbrethecancellationQftheper^^ ' 6, In view oftiie above, Ihe impugned order,dated 02,12.2Q 10 (Annexiu-e ^ ^. P/l) 1s quashed. ThL^matteris remittedfcack tp the respondeiit NQ. 2 to decide the matter a fi-esh with regard to availability of documents wlien the permit was granted to the respondent No. 4, after affbrding ; ^anopportumtyofhearingtothepartie^ 7. However, smce| ite^ in favour of the respondent No. 4,therespond€ntNo.^ today. In the jneaBtime, the resppndent authonties may consider and ! decide the case, as aforestated. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amif ^i-'.lt .••/•T', •.'" :'-..'^''':;