Order on Board

1. Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Subodh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following relief(s):-

“10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction, calling for the records from the concerned authorities for its kind perusal.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction, quashing/set-aside the order dated 19.12.2025 in revision no. 10/2025 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur so far as it relates to remitting back the matter to the RTA for fresh hearing after fulfilling the application by the respondent no.3.

10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to stay the further proceedings of the RTA relates to rehearing of the matter as directed by the STAT as per order impugned till the nest date of hearing.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition.

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a stage carriage operator holding valid permits on various routes, including the route Durg to Trishuli via Raipur, Bilaspur, Katghora and back one trip daily, and is therefore an affected person in respect of the grant of any competing permit on the said route. Respondent No.3 submitted an application before the Regional Transport Authority (‘RTA’) seeking grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Odgi to Raipur via Bhaiyathan, Patna, Baikunthpur, Khadgava, Chhotiya, Katghora, Bilaspur and back with one single trip daily. The petitioner objected to the grant of the permit on the ground that the application submitted by respondent No.3 was incomplete and did not satisfy the mandatory statutory requirements. Despite such objections, the RTA, vide order dated 27.12.2024, allowed the application and issued a permit in favour of respondent No.3.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (‘STAT’). Upon consideration of the matter, the learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that the application filed by respondent No.3 was incomplete and not in accordance with law. The Tribunal further relied upon the judgment rendered in Shailesh Vijayvargia v. State of M.P. & Others (WP No.7081/2014 decided on 09.10.2014), wherein it was held that an incomplete application cannot be entertained and is liable to be rejected. However, after setting aside the order of the RTA, the Tribunal remanded the matter back with a direction that respondent No.3 be permitted to remove the defects in the application and that the application be reconsidered thereafter.

5. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that once the Tribunal had arrived at a specific finding that the application was incomplete and legally defective, it could not have directed the authorities to allow the respondent to cure such defects subsequently and reconsider the matter. According to the petitioner, the only consequence flowing from such a finding was rejection of the application itself. The petitioner has also raised objections regarding clash of timings and consideration of documents allegedly produced after conclusion of the proceedings, which have not been appropriately dealt with by the Tribunal. Hence, the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal (‘STAT’) suffers from patent illegality and jurisdictional error inasmuch as, after having categorically recorded a fi