c. t,-' o£ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR —s.——— SINGLE BENCH: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Writ^efltionNo^Sg OF 2006 PETITIONER Smt. Sarabjeet Kaur Fiandhawa, W/o Shri Narendra Pal Singh Randhawa, aged about 30 yeare, R/o Ravigram, Telibandha, Ralpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, at Raipur. Secretary, R.TA. Raipur (C.G.) Chhabra Bus Service, Mowa Town, Pandri, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Santosh Gupta, leamed counsel for the peUtroner. Shri Sanjay S Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24m ofJanuary 2006) In this writ petttion, the temporary permit on the route Raipur to Saraipall vla Arang, Prthora for the period of one month starting from 01-01-2006 in favour of the 4 responctent is assailed by the petitioner who is holding a regular permit bearing permit No. 105/05 on the same route on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and heard him in the matter and also on the ground that the order of the Secretary, R.TA. 'is not speaking order. tt is well settled that while granting permite whettier on regutar basis or -2,- o temporary basis.the paramount consideraUon for the authority is to consider interest of the traveling public and not interest ofthe operators. It is not that the Secretary, R.T.A. has granted temporary permit under SecUon 87 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 in favour of the 4 respondent at the same Ume assigned to the petitioner. Admittedly, the time assigned to the petitioner is 10 minutes ahead of the time assigned to the 4 respondent Nothfng is placed before the Court or the authoriBes below by the petitioner to show that the temporary permit granted in favour of the 4 respondent and time assigned to him would be prejudicial to the interest of the traveling public. Even assuming that the grant of temporary permit in favour of the 4 respondent at ftie time assigned to him would be prejudicial to the interest of the petltioner, ttiat fact itself would not be a justiflcation for this Court to upset the decision taken by the Secretary, R.T.A. in the interest of the traveling public. Moreover, the temporary permit granted in favour of the 4 respondent would come to an end by the end ofthis month. Therefore, writ petitton is dismissed. No coste^ Sd/- .._ TheCbiefIustice fcr^ !'iM