High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/4507/2019disposed off

M/S. Kanker Roadways v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal

2019-12-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4507 of 2019

1. M/s. Kanker Roadways Through Partner Navsharan Garcha, S/o Late Pritam Singh Garcha, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Civil Lines, Infront of CM House, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Old Mantralay, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur Division- Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Manish Travels, Proprietor, Manish Jain, GE Road, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

4. Regional Transport Authority, Bastar Division-Bastar, District: Baster place at Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Shailendra K. Bajpai, Advocate For State :

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer :

adfasf Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 12.12.2019

1. Heard on I.A. No. 02 of 2019, which is an application for impleadig new respondent no. 4 as a necessary party in the cause-title.

2. On due consideration, I.A. No. 2 stands allowed.

3. Let necessary amendment be carried-out during the course of the day itself.

4. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 12.09.2019, whereby the Respondent No. 1 allowing the application of the Respondent No. 3 had remitted

-2back the matter to the competent authority for deciding the application within two months.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case where the Respondent No. 3 namely, Manish Travels had obtained multiple permits showing the same vehicle number which otherwise is not permissible under Section 86 (1) (D) of the Motor Vehicle Act. He further submits that the permits were issued by the Respondent No. 4 before whom the petitioner has already filed a detailed objection, which is still pending consideration.

6. According to the counsel for the petitioner, even if a direction is given by this Court for deciding the objection that he has filed, so far as multiple permits issued in favour of the Respondent No. 3 against one single vehicle his purpose would be served.

7. This limited grievance of the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel for the respondents/State.

8. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed-off with a direction to the Respondent No. 4 to immediately process the objection that the petitioner has filed, so far as multiple permits issued in favour of the Respondent No. 3 against one single vehicle is concerned inaccordance-with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed-off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul