3A 0,§‘& BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. N0. 3W0 [2004 Kush Kumar Shanna, S/o Shri Durga Prasad Sharma, Aged about-40 years, R/o. 429, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, District- Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS 1— Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2— Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.). 3— State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur (C.G.) 4- Arun Kumar Lath S/o Harlshankar Lath Nlrala Nagar Oppos1te Bus Stand, Bilaspur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA O XI-HC-22 17.3.2005 Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for the p€titioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Govt. Advocate for the State. The petitioner has pvleferred this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Congtitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by learned State Transport Administrative Tribunal, Raipur rejecting the revision filed by the petitioner herein against the order of Regional Transport AuthorityyRaipur dated 2.8.2003 (Annexure P-4) whereby RTA granted regular stage carriage ' permit in favour of respodent No.4, on the ground that revision is barred by limit been filed Within 3O davs Brief facts leading t filing of this petition are""that respondent No.4 herein lied for regular stage carriage permit on the route Bilasp r to Sarangarh before the RTA, lowed by RTA vide order dated 2.8.2003. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner herein preferred a revisio before the STAT, Raipur along with an application for co donation of delay supported by an affidavit, as the revisio was barredby limitation. However, learned STA i ’ ‘ in first para of Page No.2 of_the impugnd order observed that ground taken by the petitioner fr condoning the delay that he ion, as the same ought to have‘ om the date of the order of RTA. e. t f ap .:l e z’ Raipur which came to be -v-z2 WW, Wan—gr, WW wt 200 W mmmaf‘ga ’Z / WWEWW $Wm onlv 19.1,2004 is not c0] ‘rect and reasons assigned by the the Tribunal for rejecting respondent No.4 herein 1.9.2003 on the basis said application was that started operating his bus from of the permit which was under challenge and on accoun of that dispute started between both the parties and th ir employees, since there was a narrow gap between t e respondent No.4 permit petitioner herein moved timings and that praye Tribunal has said that o: that the petitioner herein the issuance of permit i: rejected applicatior revision on the ground of after 4’7’2 timing of the petitioner 6t. and on account of that the efore the authority for change of ‘the 1 these facts it Can be presumed was having full knowledge about 1 favour of respondent No.4 and and consequent thereto the delay, as the same was preferred the diate iof grant of permit to the L months from respondent No.4. I have heard learnt admission. Learned counsel for permit in question was g without issuance of noti( was not within the knov permit was granted to res soon as the petitioner c: permit to respondent No. , he immediately went to e r/n / was allowed. Therefore, d counsel for the etitioner on p the petitioner submitted that the ranted to respondent No.4 herein :e to the petitioner, therefore, it 71edge of the petitioner that the pondent No.4 on 2.8.2003 and as 1me to know about the grant of the RTO k/, XI—HC—22 mam mm offics, applied for copy o petition. Having heard learn have perusad the petitim Whare been mentioned the tribunal that respondent from 1.9.2003 and there the employees of the par gap between the timings herein moved to the auth prayer was also allow: petitioner has not been impugned order is perve against the settled princi} In the result, I am has not been able to ma this Court under Article the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, itis dismissed at the admissic Consequently, M.(W.)P. No. 2997/04 also stands dismissed. f the same and filed the revision ed counsel fo the petitioner, I 1, but in this petitio it has Lt how the findin recrded b he No.4 started operting his bus after, there was iste tween ties, as there was a ery narrow of the two perms nd petitioner ority for change of ie and at d, is perverse. Therefore, the able to point out that how the rse or Without jurisdicti or is )le s of law. of the opinion that the ptitioner lke out a case for interference of 227 of the Consttio of India, n stage itself. Sd L.C.BHADOO Judge (with) r n no g o y t a dpu be v it a tm th on e itun /