Bharat Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh 19 Wpc/2007/2019 ... on 20 June, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 4]

Chattisgarh High Court

Bharat Singh Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh 19 Wpc/2007/2019 ... on 20 June, 2019

Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra

                                    1

                                                      WPC No. 1176 of 2019

                                                                   NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                        WPC No. 1176 of 2019

    Bharat Singh Rajput S/o Late J. S. Rajput Aged About 60 Years R/o
     Sanjay Chowk Pendra, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

                                                           ---- Petitioner

                                Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Transport Department,
     Mantralaya, Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District
     Raipur Chhattisgarh

  2. Rajya Pariwahan Pradhikar, Chhattisgarh Raipur, Indravati
     Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

  3. Rahul Gupta S/o Lalla Ji Gupta R/o House No. 321/24,
     Venkatnagar, Jaytahari, Ward No. 03, Garula Pendra District
     Bilapsur Chhattisgarh

                                                        ---- Respondent

For Petitioner : Shri Shailendra Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sudeep Verma, Deputy GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 20/06/2019 :

1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the Process Fee is allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that timing proposed by the petitioner has been changed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court in WP No.6057/2006 (Durga Motor Service Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Others) on 20 th February, 2007, the 2 WPC No. 1176 of 2019 impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter may be remitted back to the authority for fresh consideration.

3. In the matter of Durga Motor Service, referred to above, the following was observed in paras-2 & 3:-

"2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 fairly submits that with regard to the change of timing, different than the timings published, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, though other objectors were present and agreed for the grant of timing and vide order dated 3.4.2006 (Annexure-P/2) the permission was granted to the respondent No.3 for running stage carriage as under:-

"mijksDr rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vkosnd Jh uq:y gd fuoklh [kjfl;k ukdk] vafcdkiqj ftyk ljxqtk dks ekxZ vafcdkiqj ls jk;x<+ Ogk;k lhrkiqj] /keZt;x<+ ij nks ,dy Qsjs ;k=h okgu lapkyu gsrq eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e 1988 dh /kkjk 72 ,oa 84 rFkk lgifBr NRrhlx<+ eksVj;ku fu;e 1994 ds fu;e 77 ds vuq"kj.k esa ikap o"kksaZ ds fy, iz Øe okgu lsok LFkk;h vuqKki= fuEu vfrfjDr 'krksZa ds lkFk Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS %& 1- ;k=h okgu dk le; pdz fuEukuqlkj jgsxk %& vafcdkiqj iRFkyxkao jk;x<+ 14-32 izLFkku 17-40 20-16 vkxeu 12-12 vkxeu 09-15 05-50 izLFkku

3. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not heard on the change of timings other than the published timings in the notice, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub- served if the petitioner along with all concerned are given an opportunity for putting forward their cases before the respondent No.2 for reconsidering the order dated 3.4.2006 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law."

4. In view of the above, the order dated 16.11.2018 is set aside and 3 WPC No. 1176 of 2019 respondent No.2 is directed to consider the issue regarding timing of operation of the petitioner's stage carriage and the timing be fixed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties. Let the same be done within a period of 6 weeks from today.

5. The Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent.

Sd/ Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court