Parth Prateem Sahu,J. - (1.)Correctness and sustainability of the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.4443/2019 declining to entertain writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant on the ground of existence of alternate efficacious remedy under the law, is put to challenge in this appeal.
(2.)Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that appellant is engaged in the business of providing passengers transport facilities in the State of Chhattisgarh under the permits issued by the Transport Authorities functioning under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988'). Appellant had applied before the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur for grant of a regular stage carriage permit for plying bus on the route Gidhori to Chirmiri via Shivnaraini, Amora, Janjgir, Champa, Korba, Katghora for single trip daily on rotation basis. Vide order dated 28.8.2019 the Regional Transport Authority rejected the said application for the reasons recorded therein. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of application for grant of permit, the appellant approached the High Court by filing petition bearing WPC No.4443/2019, which came to be dismissed vide order impugned of the learned Single Judge holding that there is efficacious alternate remedy available to petitioner/appellant of filing an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur under Section 89 of the Act of 1988 and that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised in a routine manner. However, while dismissing writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to petitioner/appellant to file appeal within prescribed period and further directed the Appellate Authority that if such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a further period of 60 days.
(3.)Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel for appellant submits that the order rejecting application of appellant for grant of a permit ought to have been interfered on a very specific ground of violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that second proviso to Section 80 (2) of the Act of 1988 envisages that if an application for grant of permit is refused, reasons have to be given and further, an opportunity of hearing should be given. In the present case, the stage carriage permit has been refused by respondent No.2 without affording opportunity of hearing to appellant as no notice of hearing was given to appellant for refusal of permit. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellant to exhaust the alternative remedy available to him under the provisions of the Act of 1988 and should have interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.