2026:CGHC:4445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 4138 of 2025 Order Reserved on 26.09.2025 Order Delivered on 27 .01.2026 Harikrishna Ogare S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Ogare Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Devri, Tahsil- Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - Regional Transport Authority Sector 27 3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - M/s Rainbow Travels Through Prop. Anurag Shukla, Bus Operator, R/o Ravi Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents ___________________________________________________________

For petitioner : Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava &

Mr. Shivesh Singh, Advocates For State-Respondent : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Subodh Pandey, Advocate ___________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

CAV Order

1. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) :

“10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the record of the petitioner and kind enough to quash the impugned order dt. 18/07.2025 passed by Respondent no. 3 in Revision no. 31/2025 i.e. ANNEXURE P/1, in the interest of justice.

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 be granted.”

2. Brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner is a stage carriage permit holder and plying his buses on various routs to provide better transport facilities to the commuters and hence applied for a permanent permit for the general public living in the remote tribal areas and working on and off between Raipur to Kodwagudan covering almost 155 kms. The hearing was taken place before the RTA for vehicle on 02/09/2024 after affording opportunity to the route operators wherein the respondent no.2 has also objected during the hearing on the point of time table only. The order dated 20/01/2025 was issued and the permit was granted to the petitioner for vehicle bearing no. CG2025 -SC-0073A. Vide order dated 13.02.2025 for a period of 5 years. The aforesaid order and permit was challenge in the Revision Petition No. 31/2025 before the respondent no. 3 on various new grounds not mentioned in the objections raised during the hearing. The respondent no.3 has allowed the revision over ruling the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1926, wherein it was laid down that there is no provision under Motor Vehicle Act to reject the incomplete application for grant of permit since the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.3 are quasi-judicial authority, therefore, their jurisdiction is to decide the application within four corners of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore the impugned order is illegal. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed by the respondent no.3 in utter violation of factual and legal aspect as well as settled principle of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts and therefore illegal by inception thus liable to be set aside. The impugned order is per-se illegal in as much as the respondent no.3 did not consider this very fact that the only motive of the Motor Vehicle Act is to provide better transport facilities to the commuters and since the respondent no.2 is not the route operator of the petitioner because the respondent no.2 is operating his vehicle between Bhatapara to Mungeli which is a part of common route. however the petitioner is coming from Raipur to Kodwagudan, therefore, the clashing of time table is inevitable because more than 100 vehicles operating between the Raipur to Bilaspur via Mungeli, Bhatapara, etc, therefore the Tribunal ought to have quash the revision in the light of settled principle of Full Bench of Kerala High Court AIR 2007 Kerala 177, but the revision