Chattisgarh High Court
Navin Transport vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2023
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 28 of 2023
Navin Transport Plot No.8/b, Industrial Area Dhamdha Road, Durg, District
Durg Chhattisgarh Through Partner Jaskirath Singh Bal, Son of Harjindar
Singh Bal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident of Pachripara, Durg District Durg
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Transport,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur, Indravati Bhawan,
Directorate, New Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Secretary State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh/ Transport
Commissioner, Raipur, Indrawati Bhawan, Directorate, New Raipur,
Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Assistant Secretary State Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Raipur,
Indravati Bhawan, Directorate, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Secretary State Transport Authority Moti Mahal Gwalior District
Gwalior Madhya Pradesh
6. State of Madhya Pradesh Through The Chief Secretary, Vallabh
Bhawan, Bhopal, District Bhopal Madhya Pradesh
7. Rajendra Singh Chhabra Age About 71 Years, S/o Late Santosh
Singh Chhabra, Resident of Mayapur Ward, Ambikapur, District
Surguja Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
13.01.2023
Heard Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing
for respondents No. 1 to 4.
2. This appeal is presented against an interim order dated 30.09.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3898 of 2022.
3. Though the name of Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai is reflected in the
cause-list as the counsel for respondent No.7 / writ petitioner, Mr. Bajpai
submits that he has not been instructed by the writ petitioner to appear in
this case.
4. The relevant portion of Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh High Court
(Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, for short, the Act of 2006, reads as
follows:
"2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court
from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High
Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction. - (1) An
appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one
judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division
Bench comprising of two Judges of the same High Court:
Provided that no such appeal shall lie against an
interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India."
5. Mr. Dembra submits that the writ petition was filed challenging the
proceedings of the meeting dated 04.07.2022 of the State Transport
Authority as well as order dated 07.07.2022, whereby a temporary permit
was granted in favour of the present appellant for inter-state route Durg to
Baidhan via Raipur, Bilaspur, Katghora, Ambikapur, Pratappur,
Wadrafnagar, Balangi and one single turn daily. It is further submitted by
him that the period for temporary permit was from 18.06.2022 to
13.10.2022. The writ petition has been rendered infructuous as the period
of temporary permit has expired, he contends.
6. Having regard to the submissions made, in view of the bar contained
under Section 2 of the Act of 2006, while not entertaining the writ appeal,
Registry is directed to list this case before appropriate Single Bench on
24.01.2023.
7. The writ appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Chief Justice Judge
Hem
