##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:15647 NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1409 of 2026

Shubhankar Jaiswal S/o Shri Shyam Narayan Jaiswal Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 9, Shanti Nagar, Pali, Korba, C.G.

... Petitioner.

Versus The Regional Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI D KU N M : c A n R = A D J W AY IVEDI, District- Raipur, C.G.

ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, s c t = = I C N hhattisgarh, ... Respondent.

Date: 2026.04.07 10:26:07 +0530 (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)

For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. AG.

For Intervener (Karikey Dubey) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate.

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )

Order on Board

06/04/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, whereby, application filed by the petitioner for grant of

permanent stage carriage permit has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed

application on 23.05.2025 (Annexure-P/2) before the respondent for grant of permanent stage carriage permit, but the same rejected by the respondent

2

vide impugned order (Annexure-P/1) on the ground of overlapping timing of vehicles. He further submits that while rejecting the application of the petitioner the respondent has not provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as provided in second proviso to Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Hence, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) may be set- aside with a direction to respondent to pass a fresh order after complying

relevant provision of the Act 1988.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after providing due

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, impugned order has been passed

and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the intervener supports the contention made by learned

State counsel.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the document annexed

with the petition.

6. Before proceed in the matter it would apt to note provision of Section 80(2)

of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988:-

"80. Procedure in applying for and granting permits.—

(1) *** *** ***

(2) A [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub-section (1) of section 66] shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of

any kind made at any time under this Act:

Provided that the [Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority referred to in sub- section (1) of section 66] may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 71 or of contract carriages as fixed

3

and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 74:

Provided further that where a [Regional Transport Authority, State 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."

7. From plain perusal of second proviso to Section 80(2) of the Act 1988, it is

apparent that there is a requirement of the Authorities to first apply their mind in deciding the application under Section 72 of the Act 1988 and in the event, if authorities find that the application cannot be permitted or was inclined to be rejected, the same i.e. intention of the rejection of the same has to be communicated to t