Dubey Travels Throght Shri Bhavesh Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

1 - Dubey Travels Through Shri Bhavesh Dubey Through Partner Shri Bhavesh Dubey, Age 43 Years, C/o Dubey Travels, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh

¶18

---- Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner : Shri Sudeep Johri, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer.

¶20

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

2

Order on Board

23/10/2024

With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties the aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed off by this common order as facts and issues involved in both the petitions are same.

¶25

By the present writ petitions the petitioner is questioning the order dated 16/02/2015 passed by the respondent No. 2/Regional Transport Authority (for short, ‘the RTA’) Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.).

¶26

The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is a Stage Carriage Permit holder and plying its buses on various routes to provide better transport facility to the commuters. The petitioner is having permit granted by the respondent No. 2 on the route Raipur to Jagdalpur on 17/06/2010. The petitioner moved an application for permanent permit on route of Durg to Bailadila via Bhilai, Raipur, Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon, Jagdalpur, Geedam and Dantewada on its spare bus on the same time table of his existing permit granted to him on the route Raipur to Jagdalpur. The said application was rejected by the respondent No. 2 on 04/05/2011. Against the said rejection an appeal was preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, ‘STAT’) bearing No. 57/2011 and 56/2011 respectively. Learned STAT quashed the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 04/05/2011 vide Annexure-P/5 by remanding back the matter to the RTA to decide afresh observing that, before rejection of the application, the procedure prescribed under Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act has not been followed and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 after remand of the matter by the Tribunal by reiterating the earlier order dated 04/05/2011 mentioned the decision

¶27

3

¶28

taken in the order dated 04/05/2011 vide order dated 16/03/2012. The petitioner again filed an appeal and vide Annexure-P/9, the Appellate Authority again remanded the matter to RTA to decide the application afresh by framing three issues which reads as under :-

¶29

“1/ क्या दु्ቇ� से बैलाडीला मा्ቇ� पर 4.15 बजे से राቔኌ� 21 बजे तक 15 ቔኌमनट के अंतराल में 67 अनु्ሺा प� जारी कर ቔኌदये ्ቇये हैं। यቔኌद जारी कर ቔኌदये ्ቇये हैं तो ቔኌकन वाहन स्वाቔኌमयों को ቔኌकस समय चक पर ቔኌकस तितथि( से ቔኌकस तितथि( के लिलए जारी ቔኌकये ्ቇये हैं।

¶30

2/ क्या ्ቚाति,कार ्ቛारा राቔኌ� 21 से 24 बजे तक 8 ቔኌमनट के अंतराल पर 22 अनु्ሺा प� जारी कर ቔኌदये ्ቇये हैं ? यቔኌद जारी कर ቔኌदये ्ቇये हैं तो ቔኌकन वाहन स्वाቔኌमयों को ቔኌकस समय चक पर ቔኌकस तितथि( से ቔኌकस तितथि( के लिलए जारी ቔኌकये ्ቇये हैं।

¶31

3/ क्या ्ቚाति,कार ्ቛारा इस तथ्य का सत्यापन कर लिलया ्ቇया है ቔኌक जारी सभी 89 अनु्ሺा प� आ,ार पर वाहन मा्ቇ� में चलाये जा रहे है अ(वा नहीं ?"

¶32

After the said remand again the RTA vide Annexure-P/10 dated 21/04/2014 repeated the same thing and by reiterating the earlier order dated 04/05/2011 and 16/03/2012 rejected the application. The petitioner again preferred an appeal vide Annexure-P/11, which was again remanded back by the Tribunal on 10/12/2014 (Annexure-R/1) annexed by the State. Vide order dated 10/12/2014 the Tribunal in a very specific manner directed the RTA to decide the application as per the question/issues mentioned in the order dated 19/02/2014, but ultimately the RTA vide impugned order Annexure-P/1 dated 16/02/2015 committed the same thing and reiterated the reason mentioned in its earlier orders dated 04/05/2011, 16/03/2012 and 21/04/2014 and maintained the same.

¶33

4

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the RTA/respondent No. 2 rejected the application repeatedly on various occasions starting from 04/05/2011, 16/03/2012 and 21/04/2014 reiterating the same reason again and again, which amounts to revision of its earlier order and there is no consideration about the applications submitted by the petitioner and there is no consideration of the question framed by the learned STAT by which the STAT has remanded back the matter to the RTA.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the State by supporting the order of the RTA submits that the RTA has considered the application in accordance with law by considering the fact narrated in the application as well as looking to the circumstances, hence there is no illegality in the order.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the orders of the RTA as well as orders passed by the STAT.

¶37

It appears from the order of the RTA, that the RTA repeatedly reiterated its earlier order dated 04/05/2011 in all of its order in spite of the fact that the Appellate Tribunal vide its order remanded back the matter to him because of non-compliance of the provision of Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and even in the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 19/02/2014 some questions were framed and specifically it was directed to the RTA to examine the issues and take a decision afresh, even in the order dated 21/04/2014 the same thing reiterated by the Appellate Tribunal. Again in the order dated 10/12/2014 directed the RTA to decide the application of the petitioner afresh by examining the issues framed in its earlier order and

¶38

5

¶39

remanded the same to the RTA. But it is very unfortunate that the RTA by ignoring the order of the learned STAT again and again reiterated the decision of his earlier order dated 04/05/2011, 16/03/2012 and 21/04/2014 and rejected the application of the petitioner. It appears from the order of the RTA that the petitioner’s case has not been considered afresh after remand made by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 09/01/2012 and by committing repeated error he has passed order as he is reviewing his earlier order, even the question framed by the learned STAT has not been examined in spite of the repeated direction of the learned STAT. Hence, the order passed by the RTA (Annexure-P/1) dated 16/02/2015 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the RTA to take a fresh decision on the application submitted by the petitioner afresh by examining the issue framed by the learned STAT in its order dated 19/02/2014 and pass a detailed order considering the application of the petitioner afresh. The aforesaid exercise be done within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the order of the copy of this Court.

¶40

These writ petitions are disposed off accordingly.

¶41

Sd/Sd/( Bibhu Datta Guru ) JUDGE

¶42

Kamde

Dubey Travels Throght Shri Bhavesh Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dubey Travels Throght Shri Bhavesh Dubey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Guru Harkishan Hotel and Resorts India, Raipur, C.G Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramkeshwar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobha Ram Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Pal Sandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanil Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh