Mohd. Jawed Alam Vs Regional Transport Authority

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:42275

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4269 of 2025

¶6

1 - Mohd. Jawed Alam S/o Mohammad Farooque Aged About 44 Years Bus Operator, R/o Nst Construction, Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Regional Transport Authority Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Gurusharan Singh Bhatiya S/o Late Kuldeep Singh Bhatiya Aged About 48 Years R/o Pathalgaon, Jashpur District - Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - State Transport Appellante Tribunal Ghadi Chowk, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Prasad, Advcoate For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State : Mrs. Upasna Mehta, Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

21/08/2025

¶17

By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶18

following reliefs:

¶19

“10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully

¶20

prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly

¶21

2

¶22

be pleased to call the record of the petitioner and kind enough to quash the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by Respondent no. 3 in Revision No. 06/2025 i.e. Annexure P/1 in the interest of justice.

¶23

10.2 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also kindly granted.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for a permanent permit before Respondent no. 1 on route Raigarh to Sanna via Gharghoda, Dharamjaigarh, Pathalgaon, Kansabel, Kunkuri, Jashpur and back one returning trip daily covering more than 214 kms in a single stretch. He further submits that respondent no. 1 being the sole authority to decide the applicants for grant of permits under Section 71 r/w Section 80 of Motor Vehicle Act allowed the application for grant of permit vide order dated 28.10.2024 and the permit was granted to the petitioner bearing no. CG2024-SC-0388A (413/RTA/B/2024). The aforesaid permit and grant order was challenged by the respondent no. 2 before the respondent no. 3 in revision no. 06/2025 though the respondent no. 2 was neither the route operator nor raised the objections on which the revision was filed in view of the settled principle by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in AIR 2006 Kerala 177.

¶25

Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions

¶26

3

¶27

and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that the petitioner has not approached the authorities with clean hands and has suppressed the information that permit was granted to the petitioner for 214 km from Raigarh to Sanna but the distance from Raigarh to Sanna is 268 kms. He relied upon the order passed by the M.P. High Court in Smt. Salma Khan Vs. Nirendra Singh Chouhan and Ors. in W.A. No. 1672 of 2019 wherein the M.P. High Court held in para 7 of its order which reads as under:

¶28

“7. The admitted position being that the petitioner as well as the respondent applied for the permits to the same inter-State routes. Along with the application, the writ petitioner has not furnished the information with respect to tax dues towards the Vehicle No. MO 48-P/0768. Subsequently, on the date of hearing, he has deposited the tax dues. The only question which is required to be consider is whether the information with respect to tax dues are required to be furnished to the Authorities at the time of submitting of application or not, for which Rule 72(3) of Rules 1994 and Section 70 of Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam is required to be seen, which read as under:

¶29

“72(3). The application for stage carriage permit or reserved stage carriage permit as required under sub-section (1) of Section 70 shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely:

¶30

(a) an authentic route map along with certified distance between various stages and certificate regarding motorability of the route from the departments which have control over such road;

¶31

4

¶32

(b) Certificate from Registering Authority containing make, model and seating capacity of the vehicles owned by the applicant at the time of making the application;

¶33

(c)details of the stage carriage and reserved stage carriage permits already held by the applicant.

¶34

(d) no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned;

¶35

(e) declaration duly certified by an officer of the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation authorized by the Managing Director about the portion and distance of the route covered by any nationalization scheme; and

¶36

(f) any other information as may be required by the Transport Authority.”

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶38

Annexure P/5 is the permit in respect of stage carriage permit which reveals that permit was granted to the petitioner for route Raigarh to Sanna which is total 214 kms. The actual distance of the route Raigarh to Sanna is 267 km. Therefore, the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by respondent no. 3 is correct and does not need any interference.

¶39

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶40

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Madhurima

Mohd. Jawed Alam v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jawed Alam v. Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nandini Jain Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Harish Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajesh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Murli Shyam Rahi Vs State of Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Secretary

Pooja Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chanda Ke Anjor Mahila Swa-Sahayta Samuh Vs State of Chhattisgarh