An incomplete permit application cannot be cured after adjudication by supplementing the original record.

The petitioner, a stage-carriage operator holding permits on routes including Durg–Trishuli via Raipur, Bilaspur and Katghora, objected to respondent No. 3’s application for a permanent stage-carriage permit on the route Odgi–Raipur via Bhaiyathan, Baikunthpur, Katghora and Bilaspur, alleging that the application was incomplete and that the proposed route and timings conflicted with its existing services.

The Regional Transport Authority nevertheless granted respondent No. 3 the permit by order dated 27 December 2024.

The petitioner challenged that order before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal found that respondent No. 3’s application was incomplete and contrary to law, but instead of rejecting it, set aside the RTA’s order and remanded the matter with permission to cure the defects and seek fresh consideration.

Whether the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, after finding that the permit application was incomplete and legally defective, could permit respondent No. 3 to cure the defects after adjudication and direct fresh consideration by the RTA?

Whether the Tribunal failed to properly adjudicate the petitioner’s objections concerning overlapping routes and conflicting timings under Rule 70-B of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994?

Whether the Tribunal’s remand order suffered from failure to exercise jurisdiction and required interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Sections 72 and 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which govern the grant of stage-carriage permits and adopt a liberal approach to permit applications, subject to compliance with the statutory procedure.

Section 90 authorises the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to call for the record and pass appropriate orders where an order of the RTA or STA is improper or illegal.

Rule 70-B of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 requires consideration of public convenience, overlapping routes, timing clashes, objections by existing operators and prescribed minimum interludes between services.

The Court relied on the principle in Shailesh Vijayvargia v. State of M.P., that an incomplete permit application cannot be entertained and is liable to rejection.

The governing rule applied was that the validity of a permit application must be assessed on the material available when it was considered; an applicant cannot subsequently improve the application by curing defects after adjudication.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s finding that respondent No. 3’s application was incomplete was inconsistent with its subsequent direction permitting the defects to be cured.

Once the application was found defective in matters affecting its maintainability, its legality had to be assessed as it stood on the date of consideration by the RTA.

Allowing post-adjudication rectification would enable respondent No. 3 to fill lacunae, undermine transparency in the permit process and prejudice competing operators who had objected on the basis of the original application.

The Tribunal also failed to conclusively determine the legal effect of the incomplete application and the petitioner’s objections concerning overlapping routes and timing conflicts under Rule 70-B.

Accordingly, the Tribunal had not properly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 90.

The High Court set aside the State Transport Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 19 December 2025 in Revision Case No. 10/2025 and remanded the revision petition to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal was directed to consider the matter strictly on the material available before the RTA when the application was originally considered, including the alleged incompleteness of the application, route overlap and timing objections.

Respondent No. 3 was prohibited from supplementing, improving, rectifying or curing deficiencies in the original application.

All questions of fact and law were left open, and the Tribunal was requested to decide the revision preferably within three months; there was no order as to costs.