Chattisgarh High Court
Harihar Prasad Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 387 of 2022
Harihar Prasad Soni S/o Shri Shyamlal Soni, Aged About 36 Years R/o
Village Dhobahar, Tahsil Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi
(Chhattisgarh) Through Power Of Attorney Holder Rahul Gupta, Aged About
32 Years, S/o Lallaji Gupta, Caste Gupta, R/o Gourela, Tahsil Pendraroad
Now District Gourela Pendra Marwahi (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Transport,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. State Transport Authority of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, 3rd Floor,
C-Block, New Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Secretary State Transport Authority of Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan,
3rd Floor, C-Block, New Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
4. Abhishek Singh Rajput, S/o Bharat Singh Rajput, Aged About 40
Years R/o C-167 Rama Life City, Sakri, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No.4 : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
22.07.2022
Heard Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing
for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel, appearing
for respondent No.4.
2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 14.06.2022 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.2524 of 2022. The order
of the learned Single Judge reads as follows :
"1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present
writ petition, is the order dated 24.05.2022
passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
Raipur (in short 'STAT') in Revision Petition no.
38/2022.
2. Vide the impugned order, the learned State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, in the revision
petition preferred by the respondent no. 4, has
stayed the effect and operation of the Interstate
Temporary Permit granted to the petitioner on
29.04.2022 which has a validity of three months
starting from 01.05.2022 till 31.07.2022. The
revision petition was filed by the respondent no. 4
alleging that he had also moved an application
seeking interstate temporary permit for the same
route and with the same timing and pending his
application before the Authority, the temporary
permit has been granted to the petitioner.
Accepting this contention, the Tribunal has
passed the stay order.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that STAT as
of now is not functional for want of a Presiding
Officer as the earlier Presiding Officer has retired.
It is also the contention of the petitioner that he
has already paid the requisite taxes for three
months' period from 01.05.2022 to 31.07.2022 to
the State Government. It was also contended that
in case, if the petitioner is not permitted to
operate bus as of now, the general public would
be put to great inconvenience. Moreover, it is not
going to benefit either the petitioner or the
respondent no. 4 in any manner. As the
respondent no. 4 in any case has not got any
permit till date and unless his application is
considered and decided by the authority, he
cannot operate the bus. Whereas there is a valid
temporary permit issued in favour of the petitioner
and he has also deposited the requisite taxes and
has also obtained countersignature from the
Competent Authority from the State of Madhya
Pradesh.
4. Under the given facts and circumstances of the
case, purely as an interim measure, till the
Presiding Officer of the STAT is appointed or
till the validity of the temporary permit i.e. uptill
31.07.2022, whichever is earlier, the respondent-
authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to
operate his Bus on the said route on which he
has been granted the interstate temporary permit
on 29.04.2022. In the event, if a regular Presiding
Officer is appointed for the STAT earlier to
31.07.2022, the revision petition itself be heard
and decided on its own merits at the earliest by
the Tribunal.
5. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ
petition as of now stands partly allowed and
disposed of.
Certified Copy Today."
3. Mr. Shrivastava submits that though the appellant was made a party
respondent and though an interim order was passed by the State Transport
Appellate Tribunal ('STAT') at the instance of the appellant, without giving
any notice to the appellant, the writ petition was disposed of by the learned
Single Judge causing grave prejudice. It is submitted by Mr. Shrivastava
that the authorities acted illegally and arbitrarily in not considering the
application of the appellant although the same was filed much before the
case of respondent No.4 was taken up for consideration and that it was
incumbent upon the authorities to have considered both the applications. He
places reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Bench passed on
18.07.2006 in Writ Petition No.2514 of 2006 (Gurudeep Singh Kasturia v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Another) to contend that grant of temporary licence
to the writ petitioner without considering the application of the appellant is
illegal.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Johra & Others v. State of
Haryana & Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324, has laid down that no
adverse order can be passed without hearing the party and as such, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge can be faulted with on that count.
5. However, there is another aspect of the matter. The temporary permit
issued to respondent No.4 is to expire on 31.07.2022 and it is stated at the
bar that for grant of licence from 01.08.2022, intending aspirants will have to
file fresh application. In that circumstance, bearing in mind that there will be
public inconvenience if, at this juncture, respondent No.4 is restrained from
operating the Bus service, we permit the respondent No.4 to continue in
terms of the order of the learned Single Judge.
6. Since the validity of the grant of licence issued to respondent No.4
preferred by the appellant is pending consideration before STAT, we express
no opinion on merits. Needless to say, the State respondents will decide the
applications in accordance with law while considering grant of permit w.e.f.
01.08.2022.
7. With the aforesaid observations / directions, writ appeal stands
disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Chief Justice Judge
Anu
