WP(C)/26519/2026 of RAMA CHANDRA PRADHAN Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 August 2026

ORDER

25.08.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Mr. M. Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Pravakar Behera, Learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has sought for the following relief; “Under the circumstances narrated above, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for relevant records and upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction and: - Quash the impugned reports dated 11-11-2025 and 12-05-2026 under Annexure-3 Series prepared by Opposite Party No.4; And/or direct the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and dispose of petitioner's representation dated 16-04-2026 for alteration of his route, Olaver to Cuttack covered by the Bus bearing Registration No.OD05BC6555 afresh without being influenced by the impugned reports under Annexure-3 Series within a stipulated time period by following due process of law; And/or grant such other and incidental relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary on the facts and circumstances of this case;”

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is a stage carriage operator and he has been issued with a permanent stage carriage permit for five years, valid upto 16.12.2029, as per the permit at Annexure-1 to the writ application. Such permit has been issued against the vehicle of the Petitioner bearing Registration No.OD-05-BC-6555 by the STA, Odisha in the respect of the route from Olaver to Cuttack and back.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the meantime, the Petitioner submitted an application before the STA seeking minor alteration in the route and thereby permitting exemption of the route from Rajkanika to Olaver by extending such route from Rajkanika to Chandbali. Such application is stated to have been filed on 16.04.2026. He further contended that no final decision has been taken on such application of the Petitioner. He further contended that in the meantime, a report has been received at the STA from the RTO, Kendrapara vide letter dated 12.05.2026, at Annexure-3 series to the writ application. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that such report would stand in the way of the authorities to consider the prayer of the Petitioner. As such, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seriously disputed the report of the RTO, Kendrapara. While disputing the aforesaid report dated 12.05.2024, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that a report has been prepared by the RTO, in consultation with the District Private Bus Owners Association as well as the other stakeholder without providing any opportunity of hearing to the present Petitioner.

6. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to an order dated 13.03.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.3139 of 2008 (in the matter of Srilekha Das vs. Regional Transport Authority, Balasore and others), submitted before this Court that a Division Bench of this Court has deprecated the practice of the motor vehicle authority in seeking any opinion of suggestion from the Motor Vehicle Association and to act upon such suggestions while exercising their quasi-judicial power under the M.V. Act.

7. The Hon’ble Division Bench has further made it clear that while considering the case for grant of such permit the authorities are required to keep in view the general interest and convenience of the travelling public and not that of the other bus operators or their associations. In other word, while taking a decision with regard to grant of permit the statutory authority is required to consider such application strictly keeping in view the public interest and the convenience of the local travelling public and not otherwise. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the authorities be directed to consider the application of the Petitioner at Annexure-2 strictly in accordance with law and as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and keeping in view the observations of the Division Bench in the abovenoted judgment.

8. Mr. Behera, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department, on the other hand, contended that it is needless to mention that the opposite party while considering the application of the Petitioner at Annexure-2, shall consider the same strictly in terms of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules framed thereunder. He further submitted that the report at Annexure-3 submitted by the Regional Transport Officer, Kendrapara to the STA is an internal communication. In such view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department submitted before this Court that the present writ application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed at the threshold.

9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective Parties, on a careful analysis of their submissions, and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as documents annexed to the writ application, this Court found that the sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ application is the inaction of the State Transport Authority in considering and disposing of the application of the Petitioner at Annexure-2, which was filed on 16.04.2026. The counsel for the Petitioner further apprehends that transport authorities might have been influenced by the report dated 12.05.2026 at Annexure-3 while taking a final decision in the matter.

10. Considering the fact that no final decision has been taken as of yet, this Court is of the view that the present writ application is pre-mature. However, while disposing of the present writ application, this Court directs that the application filed by the Petitioner be considered and disposed of strictly in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Act and the applicable Rules, within a period of four weeks, by passing a speaking and reasoned order. While considering such application, the Opposite Party shall also take into consideration the judgment of this Court in Srilekha Das case (supra) and shall not be influenced by the report of the Regional Transport Officer, Kendrapara, at Annexure-3 series. It is open to the State Transport Authority to issue notice for providing opportunity of hearing to any other Parties likely to be affected before taking a final decision in the matter.

11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra )

Judge

Sisir

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 28-Aug-2026 12:05:08 Signature Not Verified