[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Rainbow Travels vs Regional Transport Authority on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14949-DB
NAFR
Digitally
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
signed by
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.04.02
10:29:26
+0530
WA No. 260 of 2026
M/s Rainbow Travels Through Proprietor Anurag Shukla, Aged About 60
Years S/o Late Shri Suresh Chandar Shukla R/o Shukla Colony , Ravi
Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Regional Transport Authority Sector 27 3rd Floor, Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur, (C.G.)
2 - State Transport Appellate Tribunal Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District -
Raipur, (C.G.)
3 - Harikrishna Ogare S/o Late Shri Ganesh Ram Ogare Aged About 33
Years Occupation Bus Operator R/o Village- Devri, Tahsil- Mungeli,
District -Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.P. Mathur, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Additional General
No.1 and 2/State
For Respondent : Mr. Shivesh Singh along with Mr. Anshul R.
No.3 Shrivastava, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. G.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2/State as well as Mr.
Shivesh Singh and Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3.
2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 27.01.2026
(Harikrishna Ogare vs. Regional Transport Authority and
others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4138 of
2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by respondent No.3 herein
was allowed by the learned Single Judge.
3. Brief facts of this case are that the respondent No.3 is a stage
carriage permit holder and plying his buses on various routs to
provide better transport facilities to the commuters and hence
applied for a permanent permit for the general public living in the
remote tribal areas and working on and off between Raipur to
Kodwagudan covering almost 155 kms. The hearing was taken
place before the RTA for vehicle on 02.09.2024 after affording
opportunity to the route operators wherein the appellant has also
objected during the hearing on the point of time table only. The
order dated 20.01.2025 was issued and the permit was granted to
the respondent No.3 for vehicle bearing No. CG2025-SC-0073A
vide order dated 13.02.2025 for a period of 5 years. The aforesaid
order and permit was challenge in Revision Petition No. 31/2025
before respondent No. 2 on various new grounds not mentioned
in the objections raised during the hearing. The respondent No.2
has allowed the revision over ruling the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1926, wherein it was laid
down that there is no provision under Motor Vehicle Act to reject
the incomplete application for grant of permit since the respondent
No.1 and the respondent no.2 are quasi-judicial authority.
therefore, their jurisdiction is to decide the application within four
corners of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore the impugned order
is illegal. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 filed
WPC No.4138 of 2025, whereby, the petition filed by the
respondent No.3 herein / writ petitioner was allowed vide order
dated 27.01.2026. Hence, this writ appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is
illegal, improper, and contrary to settled principles of law, and
therefore deserves to be set aside. Learned Single Judge failed to
consider the relevant factual and legal aspects, particularly the
binding precedents laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in similar matters. In earlier cases, including W.A. No. 706/2018
and W.A. No. 723/2018, the Division Bench upheld the view that
an incomplete application is not tenable in the eyes of law.
However, the impugned order has been passed in disregard of
these binding precedents, rendering it unsustainable in law. He
further submits that the learned Single Judge erred in ignoring the
orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, which were
subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court on the
same issue. The impugned order is also based on reliance upon a
judgment relating to the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is not
applicable to the present case. Learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the settled legal position and binding nature of earlier
judgments, thereby passing an order contrary to established law,
which is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. He also
submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider the crucial
legal and factual aspects relating to the validity of an incomplete
application for grant of a regular stage carriage permit under the
Motor Vehicles Act and rules framed thereunder. It also failed to
take into account that the respondent had neither furnished
necessary information in Column No. 12 nor submitted the
required garage certificate regarding housekeeping and
maintenance of vehicles. The Tribunal had rightly set aside the
permit on these grounds, but the same was overlooked by the
Writ Court. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026
is contrary to law and deserves to be set-aside or quashed in the
ends of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.3 opposes
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant
and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the
aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioner / respondent No.3 herein, in which no
interference is called for.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition holding that the
rejection of the respondent No.3's application on the ground of
non-filling of Columns 11 to 15 of Form CGMVR-42 was
unjustified, as the said columns were not applicable to an
application for grant of a fresh stage carriage permit. Learned
Single Judge further held that such rejection was based on a
hyper-technical approach, ignoring the substance of the
application and the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, and that a
permit cannot be denied merely on the ground of a defective
application. Accordingly, finding the impugned order to be arbitrary
and contrary to settled law, set aside the same and allowed the
writ petition filed by respondent No.3.
8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition,
as also with writ appeal and also considering the finding recorded
by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by
the writ petitioner / respondent No.3 herein, we are of the
considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the
impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be
and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu
