Moh Naved vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 August, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Moh Naved vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 August, 2025

                                                          1




                                                                            2025:CGHC:42636


                                                                                         NAFR

                            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                                 WPC No. 4507 of 2025

                   1 - Moh Naved S/o Rais Ahamad Aged About 23 Years R/o Proprietor Of
                   M/s Nafees Transport Service, Address C/o Irshad Alam, Kharsiya Naka
                   Ambikapur Surguja (C.G.) Permanent Address Pali Road Ward No. 5/6 Om
                   Colony Shahdol District - Shahdol (M.P.)
                                                                       ... Petitioner(s)

                                                       versus

                   1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport,
                   Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
                   2 - The State Transport Authority Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa
                   Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                          ----Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Upsana Mehta, Dy. G.A.

Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
22/08/2025

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

following reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to call the records pertaining
Digitally signed
by JYOTI JHA
to case of petitioner.

Date:
2025.08.28
11:35:02

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly
be pleased to set-aside the impugned
+0530

order dated 23.06.2025 and direct the
respondent no. 2 to consider and decide
the application of petitioner for grant of
Permanent Stage Carriage Permit, in
compliance of provision under Sub-

2

Section 2 of Section 80 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, in the interest of
justice.

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner,
may also be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is

challenging the order dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) whereby

the respondent no. 2 has rejected the application of the petitioner

filed under Section 72 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 for grant of

Permanent State Carriage. It is respectfully submitted that,

petitioner had filed application for grant of Permanent Stage

Carriage on the route from Raipur to Shahdol via Budhar,

Dhanpuri, Rajendragarh, Amarkantak, Kevchi, Kota, Bilaspur

Sargaon, Nandghat, Simga and one trip back of his Bus bearing

No. CG 15 DW 5866 after depositing Rs. 2500/- fees. It is

respectfully submitted that , respondent no. 2 has passed the

impugned order dated 23.06.2025 without complying the

mandatory provision under sub-section 2 of Section 80 of Motor

Vehicle Act, 1988 which is in violation of principle of natural justice.

3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission of the counsel for

the petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the

record with utmost circumspection.

5. The challenge to the said order is primarily on the ground that the

authorities have not strictly adhered to the procedure as is

otherwise required and laid down under Section 71 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 so also have not granted due and fair

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is required under
3

Section 80 of the aforesaid Act of 1988.

6. From plain perusal of the second proviso of sub-section 2 of

Section 80, there is a requirement of the Authorities to first apply

his mind in deciding the application under Section 72 and in the

event, if authorities find that the application cannot be permitted or

was inclined to be rejected, the same i.e. intention of the rejection

of the same has to be communicated to the applicant concerned

and an opportunity of hearing has to be given keeping in

consonance Sub-section 2 of the Section 71 where the authorities

can grant an opportunity of hearing to the applicant concerned for

amending the time table if they so want. So that his application and

objections can be considered in that regard.

7. This exercise perhaps has not been undertaken by the respondent

Authorities while passing the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated

23.06.2025. The plain perusal of the impugned order also does not

reflect that the requirement of the proviso to the sub-section 2 of

Section 71 has also a requirement of the proviso under sub-section

2 of the Section 80 having been complied with or adhered to in the

process of passing of the impugned order Annexure P/1.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order to the extent would

not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly

set aside. The impugned order and the issue is remitted back to

the Regional Transport Authority so as to provide an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner post refusal of his application for grant of

Permanent Stage Carriage Permit in terms of the requirement

under Proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 80 and also keeping in

view the proviso to sub-section 2 of Section 71.
4

9. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands

allowed and disposed of. Respondent authorities are expected to

take an appropriate decision afresh after hearing all the concerned

parties to the proceedings including the objectors who had

participated in the proceeding at the first instance and an order be

passed within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receiving of

this order.

10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

SD/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge

Jyoti