KANKER ROADWAYS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 16.03.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, whereby the application for grant of temporary permit for the route Raipur to Bailadila via Jagdalpur and back, and further the application for grant of permanent permit, on the same route, was rejected.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was plying its buses from Raipur to Bailadila, from the year 2003. In the year 2010, the RTA changed the timing of the Bus in permit of the petitioner on objection made by some other operators and thus, since 2010, temporary permits were issued to the petitioner. The latest temporary permit was applied by the petitioner on 29.02.2012 for the period from 01.03.2012 to 31.05.2012. The petitioner had earlier made an application for grant of permanent permit on 15.06.2010 (Annexure P/5). The said application was taken up by the RTA on 07.03.2012. The applications of those operators were considered in such hearing who were plying their vehicles under temporary permit for four months or above. After consideration, the application of the petitioner for permanent permit, was rejected and also, the temporary permit, which was valid upto 31.05.2012, was also cancelled.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Bajaj, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 to 3 submits that there is an alternative remedy of appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh. Thus, this petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Further, the petitioner was granted temporary permit lastly on 29.03.2012 for a period from 01.03.2012 to 31.05.2012, on account of pendency of his application for grant of permanent permit and to meet the temporary need. The petitioner has having number of permits for number of routes, including the route in question. The impugned order does not need any interference as the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent permit has been rejected on well reasoned ground.