Mohd. Riyaz Chisty Vs Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.(C) No. 4307 of 2023

¶5

Mohd. Riyaz Chisty, S/o- Md. Nazeer Chisty, aged about 46 years, R/oVillage- Bageecha, District - Jashpur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Sector- 27, New Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Prakash Kumar Gupta, S/o- Late Shri B.P. Gupta, Bus Operator, R/o- VillageTapkara, District- Jashpur (C.G.)

¶10

Mohd. Jiyaul Haque, Bus Operator, Rajdhani Transport R/o- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

Anup Minz, S/o- Vincent Minz, Bus Operator, R/o- Shanti Nagar, Tildega, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶12

Gurbhej Singh Chhabra, Bus Operator, Dhan Gurunanak Travels, R/oGurudwara Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

Md. Farookh, Bus Operator, New Shamim Transport, R/o- Village- Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.)

¶14

Minnatullah Rahmani, Bus Operator, R/o- Village- Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

M/s Adarsh Travels Bus Service, Office- Near Shiv Talkies Road, in front of Hotel Central Point, Old Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Bus Operator, Hanuman Travels, Office- New Hightech Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

06.03.2024

¶21

1. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh dated 08.02.2021. Vide the said order, an application for grant of regular permit on the route Kusmi to Bilaspur via Sanna, Bageecha, Kansabel, Ludeg, Patthalgaon, Dharamjaigarh, Hati, Korba, Urga, Baloda, Luthra Shareef, Seepat and one single trip daily was rejected by the Respondent No. 1.

¶22

2

¶23

2. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had moved an application for grant of regular permit for his bus bearing registration No. CG14 G-0786. The route for which the petitioner had applied from Kusmi to Bilaspur and one return trip daily. The respondents No. 2 to 8 had entered appearance before the respondent No. 1 and had submitted their objections. Finally, vide the impugned order, the application of the petitioner stood rejected; firstly, on the ground that there was a time clash with the other route operators and secondly, for non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Rule 72(3) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994.

¶24

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is in contravention to the requirement under the second proviso to Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. As per the Counsel for the petitioner, upon the Respondent No. 1 deciding to reject the application of the petitioner, the petitioner should have been informed in writing, the reasons for refusal and thereafter an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to submit his explanation, if they so warrant. In the absence of which, a decision of the Respondent No. 1 deserves to be interfered with.

¶25

4. The State Counsel on the other hand opposing the petition submits that the second proviso to Section 80(2) does not prescribe for a post decision hearing, rather it is a case where the petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing before the Authority passes an order on his application. It is the further contention of the State Counsel that as regards the pre decision hearing is concerned, that has been effectively provided to the petitioner and the impugned order was passed only thereafter, thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. The State counsel raised an objection that the petitioner, if at all was aggrieved of the same, should have availed a remedy of appeal before the STAT Raipur. Having not done

¶26

3

¶27

that at that point of time, he would be precluded from filing of the writ petition now.

¶28

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the STAT Raipur is not functional on account of non-availability of a Presiding Judge as the earlier occupant to the office has already retired on 29.02.2024 and therefore the petitioner does not have any other efficacious remedy, as such he has approached this Court. He would further submit that the order passed by Respondent No.1 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner according to the provisions of Section 80 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. He has placed reliance on the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in WPC No. 3073 of 2022 dated 14.07.2022, parties being 'Avinash Tigga vs. Regional Transport Authority Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others' .

¶29

6. The State Counsel upon a query being made, makes a submission that though there seems to be a recommendation made by the High Court but the State Government has till date not passed a formal order of appointment of the concerned Officer and the Tribunal still is without a regular Presiding Judge.

¶30

7. Under the circumstances, this Court would have to entertain the instant writ petition, as the petitioner cannot be left remedy less. As regards, the issue whether the petitioner would be entitled for a post decision hearing, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the relevant provisions in this regard. The application of the petitioner which stood rejected, was one under Section 80. For ready reference, Section 80(1) & 80(2) and Second proviso to the Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is reproduced here-in-under:-

¶31

“ 80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.

¶32

(1) An application for a permit of any kind may be

¶33

4

¶34

made at any time.

¶35

(2) A Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in subsection (1) of section 66 shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act:

¶36

Provided further that where a Regional Transport Authority, State

¶37

Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66 refuses an application for the grant of a permit of any kind under this Act, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal of the same and an opportunity of being heard in the matter.”

¶38

8. The plain perusal of the Second Proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 80 of the aforesaid Act, gives a clear indication that the law makers when they had framed the law, were of the view that when an application for grant of permit, was being considered by the Transport Authority or by the prescribed Authority and the said Authority was inclined to refuse the application, the applicant should be first informed in writing of the reasons for the refusal and an opportunity of being heard in this respect. If we read the contents of the Second Proviso of Sub Section (2) of Section 80, it would clearly give an indication that the nature of opportunity of hearing provided, is upon the intention of the Authority in refusing the application. That in other words mean that said opportunity of hearing was required at the stage of refusal and the law makers did not intend pre decision hearing at this stage, rather it was the post decision hearing that has being dealt with under the Second Proviso.

¶39

9. This Court, in the recent past in an identical set of facts in WP(C) No. 1058 of 2022 Rajesh Dewangan Vs. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh decided on 25.02.2022, has taken a similar view, wherein paragraph-6, it has been held as under:-

¶40

“6. Plain perusal of the second proviso to the Sub Section 2 clearly indicates that in the event if the State Authorities intention to refuse grant of permit of

¶41

5

¶42

any kind under the Act, the intention and reasons in written should be made known to the concerned applicant and an opportunity of hearing for that matter be provided. This in other words means that on an application for grant of permit, if the respondent Authorities are not inclined to allow the same their intention and reasons for their reaching to such a conclusion has to be communicated to the concerned applicant or that he gets an opportunity to provide his explanation to the concerned Authority. This would also mean that in the event of certain curable defects that were detected those defects could be rectified, removed or met with by the concerned applicant. Such exercise i.e. the requirement of second proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 80 does not seem to have been followed by the Authorities concerned in the instant case and have straight away on the objections raised by the some objector rejected the application outrightly. Such is not the intention and object behind the second proviso to Sub Section 2 of Section 80.”

¶43

10. In the instant case also, it is reflected that after the order dated 08.02.2021 was passed before it was officially pronounced, the requirement as is required under the Second Proviso to Sub Section(2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988 seems to have not been complied with.

¶44

11. Moreover, though there is an observation that the refusal was also for noncompliance of the provisions of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 72 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules 1994, however the specific short-comings under the said provision, has not been disclosed to the petitioner or in the impugned order.

¶45

12. For the said given reasons, reiterating the view of this Court in the case of Rajesh Dewangan (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the matter is one which deserves to be remitted back to the respondent No. 1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner so far as his claim for grant of permit is concerned in accordance with the Second proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and thereafter, the Authority is at liberty to pass a final order.

¶46

13. The writ petition therefore to the aforesaid extent stands allowed and the

¶47

6

¶48

matter stands remitted back to the respondent No. 1 from the stage of the order passed on 08.02.2021. The respondent No.1 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

¶49

14. The present writ petition therefore to that extent allowed and disposed of.

¶50

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶51

vatti

Mohd. Riyaz Chisty v. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Riyaz Chisty v. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Satish Katiyara Vs the Collector

Durgesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Dhruv Vs Abhishek Kumar Soni

Ram Gulal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Raimuni @ Smt. Raimuni Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh