In a writ petition filed by the State challenging an order allowing an appeal for a stage carriage permit by a respondent, the Single Judge held that no strong case for interference existed. The court dismissed the petition, noting the State failed to comply with the original order within the granted timeframe.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 2708 of 2022
---- Petitioners
Versus
Kumar Marai S/o Chherka Marai R/o Ward No. 5, Adarsh Nagar, Bharat Mata Chowk, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner/State
: Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, GA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
06/07/2022
2
opportunity of hearing on the completion of formalities in terms of the requirements under Motor Vehicle Act and Rules and shall decide his application within a period of 30 days. It was further observed by the learned STAT that in the event if the authority finds that there is a clash of timing then if need arises the authorities may permit the respondent no.1 to move an appropriate amendment in the time schedule and if the same is found suitable, order should be passed by the State Transport Authorities. It is this order against which the petitioner-State has filed the writ petition.
3 . Prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case whatsoever has been made out by the petitioner calling for an interference with the impugned order. The proceedings drawn by the Transport Authority at the first instance was during the lockdown period and further the proceedings were held in the online mode. For some reasons, the respondent no.1 could not get connected and for the reason that there was no representation in the given circumstances, the Transport Authority reached to the conclusion that respondent no.1 the applicant perhaps was not interested in getting his permit. This conclusion drawn by the Transport Authority under the then prevailing circumstances is totally unwarranted and uncalled for looking to the circumstances that were prevalent at that point of time on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. The STAT decided the appeal on 22.11.2021 i.e. after about 10-11 months from the date the regional permit application for grant of permit was rejected by the Transport Authority. The instant writ petition itself has been filed after more than 6 months from the date of order passed by the STAT. No plausible explanation has been given by the State in not approaching the Court promptly particularly when the learned STAT had granted them only 30 days time for compliance. In spite of more than 6-8 months having lapsed even today, the State has not shown any interest towards compliance of this order.
3
innocuous order that could not have been passed under the said circumstances and petitioners should not have any grievance in complying with the said order. All that the learned STAT indicated was that respondent no.1 the applicant should be heard afresh and he should also be permitted to complete whatever formalities if at all if there is any which has been left out and if required in a given case also permit the applicant to reschedule the timing in the event there is a time clash.
5 . This Court does not find any good ground available with the State to show that these observations by the learned STAT is impractical or the observations are those, which can not be complied with under any circumstance. It appears that the present writ petition has been filed only to avoid the contempt proceeding which could had been filed before the learned STAT.
said writ petition accordingly stands rejected.
Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge
Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the impugned order of the State Transport Authority allowing an appeal for a stage carriage permit.
Whether the observations in the impugned order calling for a fresh hearing and compliance are impractical or uncomplyable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport
Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh
Kumar Marai S/o Chherka Marai
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
