PUSPANJALI GAANA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

(2.) The main grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to competence of the committee to entertain the objection raised by one, Sri. Subrat Shee. It is the submission of Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Chairman as well as member at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 of the Committee are not competent to function as such, in view of Sec. 68(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(3.) Mr. Kar, learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision at item No. 3.2 of 300th Virtual Meeting of S.T.A., Odisha held on 24/3/2023 (Annexure-5). Referring to the permanent permit at Annexure-1, Mr. Kar, learned counsel submits that Bhagawanpur is already there in the route chart. Pursuant to the decision of the S.T.A., the Petitioner has been directed to submit the permanent permit for necessary correction to insert Bhagawanpur as a stoppage. It is his submission that since the route chart contains a stoppage at Bhagawanpur, there is no requirement of insertion of Bhagawanpur as stoppage in the permanent permit.