Sumant Saurav @ Sumukh Saurav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2974 of 2017 =========================================================== Sumant Saurav @ Sumukh Saurav, Son of Sri Kailash Mishra, Resident of Krishnapuri, Bhagawanpur Chowk, P.O. P.S. and District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Transport Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Chairman cum Divisional Commissioner, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur, At Commissioner's Compound, Muzaffarpur.
4. Secretary, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority Muzaffarpur, At Commissioner's Compound, Muzaffarpur.
5. Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna.
6. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Son of Late Dhurb Sharma, Resident at Ataradah, P.O. Muzaffarpur, P.S. Sadar District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheopujan Singh, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. AC to SC 22 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-03-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.12.2016 passed by Respondent No. 2 by which the replacement application of the respondent No. 6 has been allowed relating with permanent permit No. 205/2014 for the route Bettiah to Patna on Bus No. BR 31PA - 3440 in place of Bus No. BR 06PB/3721.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a revision application before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in T. Revision No. 09 of 2016 was filed and had been admitted on 30.12.2016 but the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Patna High Court CWJC No.2974 of 2017 dt.14-03-2018 2/2 had not been functioning by reason of vacancy on the post of the Presiding Officer. It is stated that the said Appellate Tribunal has now resumed functioning.
3. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enter into the merits of the matter as the revision application of the petitioner is likely to be decided on its own merits by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in due course.
4. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. B.T/Chandran (Vikash Jain, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 16.03.2018 Transmission Date N.A.