Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16518
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J
M/S CHHABRA BUS SERVICE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC No. 4090 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava
For the Respondents: S. S. Choubey, B.L. Dembra
A writ petition is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly when the impugned permit is not yet operational pending countersignature under Section 88.
Headnote:The case involves the Motor Vehicles Act and a reciprocal agreement between the States of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand. A bus operator challenged the grant of an interstate regular stage carriage permit to another operator on the route Ambikapur to Bhawnathpur, alleging timing clashes and violations of Clauses 10(Q) and 10(M) of the reciprocal agreement which regulate permissible trips and overnight halts. The court found that the permit was still subject to countersignature by the State of Jharkhand. The primary issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of an alternative statutory remedy and the pending countersignature of the permit. The court reasoned that under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the permit requires countersignature to be operational, and Section 89 provides an efficacious alternative remedy before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail appropriate statutory remedy in accordance with law before the competent forum, if so advised.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over the grant of an interstate stage carriage permit and alleged timing clashes violating a reciprocal agreement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contention regarding the legality of permit timings versus the availability of statutory appeals and the requirement of countersignature. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the motor vehicles act precludes the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
RJAATGHVENDRADsRJAiAigg TnGiteHadl V by EyNDRA NAFR
Order on Board
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly call for the entire record with respect to the case of the petitioner from respondent department.
10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 14/07/2022 passed by the respondent no. 02 being illegal, and against the provisions of Law/reciprocal agreement.
10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief in favour of the petitioner which may deem fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is a bus operator engaged in the transport business on the strength of permits granted by the competent Transport Authorities and is presently holding Interstate Regular Stage Carriage Permit No. CG/STA/152/2017 on the route Ambikapur to Ranchi via Rajpur, Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Ranka, Gadwa, Gadwa Road Station, Padwamod, Daltenganj, Latehar and Kudu with one single trip daily; it is submitted that respondent No. 4 moved an application before the State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh seeking grant of an interstate regular stage carriage permit on the route Ambikapur to Bhawnathpur via Rajpur, Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Ranka, Gadwa, Ramuna and Nagar with one return trip daily, whereafter the said application along with the proposed timetable was published in the official agenda inviting objections from existing route operators; according to the petitioner, during the hearing conducted by the State Transport Authority through video conferencing, objections were raised by the petitioner regarding clash of timing and violation of the terms and conditions contained in the reciprocal agreement executed between the States of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand governing interstate transport permits; it is further submitted that thereafter respondent No. 4 submitted a revised timetable, which was again published for inviting objections, and the petitioner once again submitted detailed objections contending that the proposed timings were in violation of the reciprocal agreement and would result in direct clash with the petitioner’s existing timings on the route in question; however, despite the objections raised by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 14.07.2022 granting interstate regular stage carriage permit in favour of respondent No. 4 for the route Ambikapur to Bhawnathpur for the period from 01.08.2022 to 31.07.2027; according to the petitioner, the grant of permit is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the reciprocal agreement dated 28.03.2008 executed between the States of Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, particularly Clause 10(Q) and Clause 10(M), which regulate the number of permissible trips and mandate overnight halt within the home State; it is specifically contended that the timing granted to respondent No. 4 directly clashes with the petitioner’s existing timings at several stages including Gadwa, Ranka, Ramanujganj, Balrampur, Rajpur and Ambikapur, thereby adversely affecting the petitioner’s transport operations and causing prejudice to his existing permit rights; hence, being aggrieved by the impugned order granting permit in favour of respondent No. 4, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an existin
