Chhattisgarh HC Lets Bus Operator Keep Running For Now, Sends Rival’s Permit Challenge Back For Fresh Hearing

The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) granted the petitioner a permanent stage carriage permit to operate between Mungeli and Kodwagodan.

Respondent No. 4 challenged the grant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), which set aside the permit on 12 July 2024, relying on alleged deficiencies in the petitioner’s application and documents and alleged conflicting timings.

The petitioner challenged the STAT’s order, principally alleging that he had not received an effective opportunity to answer those objections; he also disputed the findings on statutory compliance and timing.

Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, concerns the particulars required in an application for a stage carriage permit; Section 72 governs the grant of such permits and empowers the RTA to grant them subject to applicable conditions.

Rule 72 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, prescribes application requirements and supporting particulars and documents; whether those requirements were met was to be determined from the record and under the applicable law.

The rule of audi alteram partem requires a real and meaningful opportunity to know and answer the case against an affected party, not merely formal notice.

The Court relied on Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 7 SCC 545, on fair procedure and meaningful hearing.

It noted Manish Travels and Another v. Regional Transport Authority and Another, 2018 SCC OnLine Chh 684, but left its applicability to the STAT to assess.

The petitioner was directly affected because the STAT’s order extinguished the benefit of a permit already granted by the RTA.

Although the respondents relied on the petitioner’s appearances before the STAT, appearance alone did not establish that he had a meaningful opportunity to address the grounds ultimately relied on.

The record also presented disputed questions about whether the required documents had been submitted, the effect of any omissions or tax-related objections, and whether the operators’ routes and timings conflicted.

The Court therefore declined to decide those merits in writ proceedings and held that they should be determined by the STAT after examining the original record and hearing all concerned parties.

It left the petitioner’s ultimate entitlement to the permit and the validity of respondent No. 4’s objections open.

The existing interim protection was continued until the STAT’s decision, subject to compliance with the permit and applicable law; the STAT was directed to endeavour to decide the matter within 60 days of the parties’ appearance.