Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1213 (JHR)

Suresh Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2022-09-29

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 25.05.2022 (Anneuxre-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 7 in T.R. No. 05 of 2022 whereby revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 17.11.2021 (Anneuxre-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner-cum-Chairman, South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3), has been dismissed. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 whereby the petitioner was directed to file a fresh time table with requisite fee for the route in question (Chatra to Ranchi). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition. 3. It appears that in the meeting of the South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi dated 25.10.2019, a decision was taken to grant permanent permit to the petitioner for plying Bus No. JH 01DQ 5777 (Model-2019) for the route from ‘Chatra to Ranchi via Bagra More, Bariyatu, Balumath, Chandwa, Kuru’ for one trip up and down for a period of 5 years with a condition that if any objection was to be filed against the time table proposed by the petitioner, the same was to be done with up-to-date required documents as well as requisite fee and the Chairman of the authority was to take decision on the said objection. Subsequently, two objections were filed against the petitioner’s proposed time table by Praveen Kumar Satyarthi (the respondent no. 5) and Arvind Kumar Yadav (the respondent no. 6). Pursuant to the said objections, vide impugned order dated 17.11.2021, the petitioner was directed by the respondent no. 3 to file amended time table with requisite fee. However, an explanation was sought from the respondent no. 6 as to why the permit issued to him for the route ‘Ranchi to Panki’ was not countersigned. 4. The petitioner has contended in the present writ petition that the permit of the respondent no. 5 issued for the route ‘Ranchi to Rajgir via Chatra’ was valid up to 28.07.2020 whereas the permit issued to the respondent no. 6 was not countersigned and hence, the objections made by them against the time table issued to the petitioner for the route in question were not valid. 5. The said contention of the petitioner has duly been considered by the respondent no. 6 was not countersigned and hence, the objections made by them against the time table issued to the petitioner for the route in question were not valid. 5. The said contention of the petitioner has duly been considered by the respondent no. 7 in the impugned order dated 25.05.2022. As per the finding of respondent no. 7, the permit of the respondent no. 5 was valid till 30.09.2021 by the order of Transport Department vide letter no. 192/2016-749 dated 13.07.2021, however the respondent no. 5 could not apply for renewal of the same due to some technical error in the permit portal of the Transport Department. The delay in filing application for renewal of the permit issued to him for the said route was also attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic during the intervening period particularly the year 2020-21 due to which the normal functioning of Transport Department was affected. It has also been observed by the respondent no. 7 that the ground taken by the petitioner in not amending the allotted time table for the said route stating that the permit of the respondent no. 5 was not valid, cannot be treated as a justifiable reason as the authority has power to condone the delay. So far as non-countersigning of the permit issued to the respondent no. 6 is concerned, it has been observed by the respondent no. 7 in the impugned order that the said respondent had already applied for the countersignature on 16.10.2017 along with requisite fee, however the same was kept pending for the decision by the authority and therefore, the delay caused in countersigning the permit has to be attributed to the authority. Otherwise also, the said permit is valid till 05.04.2025. 6. Considering that the respondent no. 7 has duly considered the issue with regard to non-amending the proposed time table by the petitioner for the route in question as well as the objection raised by him against the permits issued to the respondent nos. 5 and 6, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 25.05.2022 and 17.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 7 and the respondent no. 3 respectively. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.