The Court held that since the requirement for countersignature for stage carriage permits was dispensed with by a Gazette Notification, the petitioner should file a fresh application to be decided by the RTA in accordance with Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1 NAFR RJAATGHVENDRADsRJAiAigg TnGiteHadl V by EyNDRA

Order on Board

2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner had initially filed applications before the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, seeking grant of regular stage carriage permits on the routes Bilaspur to Jaspur via Gidhori and back, and Bilaspur to Sarai via Gidhori and back, with one return trip daily; and upon due consideration of objections raised by certain route operators, the R.T.A., Bilaspur granted the said permits subject to the condition that they would be operative only after obtaining countersignature from the R.T.A., Raipur. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted applications before the R.T.A., Raipur along with requisite documents and fees, which were heard on 17.12.2019; however, during the pendency of the said proceedings, the State Government issued a Gazette Notification dated 24.12.2019 abolishing all Regional Transport Authorities in the State and vesting such powers in the Transport Commissioner, Chhattisgarh under Section 68(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pursuant to which all pending files stood transferred to the office of the Transport Commissioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 considered the petitioner’s applications in its meeting dated 03.02.2020 (Agenda Serial Nos. 17 and 18), where, despite the absence of any formal objections from certain operators, the applications for countersignature were rejected vide orders dated 01.07.2020 and 04.07.2020; aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred writ petitions bearing Nos. 1150/2021 and 1288/2021 before this Hon’ble Court, which were entertained and interim relief was granted staying the operation of the impugned orders vide order dated 04.03.2021. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner duly informed respondent No.2 of the said interim order by submitting representations along with a copy of the Court’s order; however, it is submitted that certain private operators, namely Mushaq Ahmed and Javed Khan, lodged complaints before respondent No.3 and exerted undue pressure, whereupon respondent No.3, acting without jurisdiction or authority of law, issued a letter dated 10.03.2021 directing the petitioner to stop operating the vehicles, despite having no statutory power to interfere in matters relating to grant of stage carriage permits. It is further submitted that such action is wholly illegal, arbitrary, and beyond jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that no power has been delegated to respondent No.3 under the Motor Vehicles Act or the applicable rules, nor is there any provision permitting review of orders already passed by the competent authority, and further, the issuance of such communication despite subsistence of the interim order dated 04.03.2021 amounts to wilful disregard of the orders of this Hon’ble Court; hence, the impugned actions and communications are liable to be set aside being unlawful, without jurisdiction, and in violation of settled legal principles.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of a stage carriage permit, which has been lyin