Back
2022 Supreme(Jhk) 642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Suresh Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 3258 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Sreenu Garapati, S.C.-III, Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, A.C. to S.C.-III
The authority has the power to condone delays and consider objections raised against proposed time tables and permit renewals.
Headnote:
Quashing Order - State Transport Appellate Tribunal - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner-cum-Chairman, South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, regarding the petitioner's proposed time table and objections raised by other parties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders related to the proposed time table for a bus route and objections raised by other parties. The court found the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections raised by other parties were duly considered, and there was no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the petitioner's proposed time table, objections raised by other parties, and the authority's power to condone delay in amending time tables and permit renewals.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the authority's power to condone delays, the validity of permits issued to other parties, and the consideration given to objections raised against the petitioner's proposed time table.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found devoid of merit and dismissed by the court.
ORDER :
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 25.05.2022 (Anneuxre-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 7 in T.R. No. 05 of 2022 whereby revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2021 (Anneuxre-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Chairman, South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3), has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner was directed to file a fresh time table with requisite fee for the route in question (Chatra to Ranchi).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.
3. It appears that in the meeting of the South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi dated 25.10.2019, a decision was taken to grant permanent permit to the petitioner for plying Bus No. JH 01DQ 5777 (Model-2019) for the route from ‘Chatra to Ranchi via Bagra More, Bariyatu, Balumath, Chandwa, Kuru’ for one trip up and down for a period of 5 years with a condition that if any objection was to be filed against the time table proposed by the petitioner, the same was to be done with up-to-date required documents as well as requisite fee and the Chairman of the authority was to take decision on the said objection. Subsequently, two objections were filed against the petitioner’s proposed time table by Praveen Kumar Satyarthi (the respondent no. 5) and Arvind Kumar Yadav (the respondent no. 6). Pursuant to the said objections, vide impugned order dated 17.11.2021, the petitioner was directed by the respondent no. 3 to file amended time table with requisite fee. However, an explanation was sought from the respondent no. 6 as to why the permit issued to him for the route ‘Ranchi to Panki’ was not countersigned.
4. The petitioner has contended in the present writ petition that the permit of the respondent no. 5 issued for the route ‘Ranchi to Rajgir via Chatra’ was valid up to 28.07.2020 whereas the permit issued to the respondent no. 6 was not countersigned and hence, the objections made by them against the time table issued to the petitioner for the route in question were not valid.
5. The said contention of the petitioner has duly been considered by the respondent no. 7 in the impugned order dated 25.05.2022. As per the finding of respondent no. 7, the permit of the respondent no. 5 was valid till 30.09.2021 by the order of Transport Department vide letter no. 192/2016-749 dated 13.07.2021, however the respondent no. 5 could not apply for renewal of the same due to some technical error in the permit portal of the Transport Department. The delay in filing application for renewal of the permit issued to him for the said route was also attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic during the intervening period particularly the year 2020-21 due to which the normal functioning of Transport Department was affected. It has also been observed by the respondent no. 7 that the ground taken by the petitioner in not amending the allotted time table for the said route stating that the permit of the respondent no. 5 was not valid, cannot be treated as a justifiable reason as the authority has power to condone the delay. So far as non-countersigning of the permit issued to the respondent no. 6 is concerned, it has been observed by the respondent no. 7 in the impugned order that the said respondent had already applied for the countersignature on 16.10.2017 along with requisite fee, however the same was kept pending for the decision by the authority and therefore, the delay caused in countersigning the permit has to be attributed to the authority. Otherwise also, the said permit is valid till 05.04.2025.
6. Considering that the respondent no. 7 has duly considered the issue with regard to non-amending the proposed time table by the petitioner f
