,i-l"'$!"1--. ;2i ^ :,.^' HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HON*BLE SHRI JUSTICB PmTINKERDIWAKBR W.P. (2271 N0. 2040/2009 PBTITIONBR M/s. Dubey Tmvels, Thro Partner Brijesh Dubey, 34 years, S/o, Maai Dubey, Fafadih, Raipur RESPONDBNT8 Versus 1. Regional Traasport Aufhority, C.G, Jagdalpur 2. State of Chhatdsgarh, By Secretaiy Traiisport Departaient, D. K.S»Bhawaa, Raipixr WRIT PBTITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB CONSTITUTIOS OF INDIA Aooearaace: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A,S,Kachhawaha, Dy, Advocate General for fhe State/respondent No,2, ORALQRDBR (23.04.2009) Leanied counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an. appUcation seekiag formal amendiaent ia fhe writ petition aad imipleadiag State GovemiQent as respondent No.2. For fhe reasons mentioned ia the appMcation, fhe saaie is allowed, Leanxed counsel for tibie petitioner to carry out fhe amendxnent durmg fhe course of fhe day m fhe Court itsetf, Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is fhat he has applied for temporary penmt on 23,12.2008 aiid the said application has not been decided tiU date. stt^.;^--.<l Leamed counsel for fhe State veiy fairly submita that fhis appUcation would be decided by ftie coiapetent aufhorily after due consideration wifliin six weeks as oa accoiint of prcsent ongoing elections, code of conduct is appHcable, the appUcation could not be decided* I have heard counsel for the respective parties, Considenng fhe request of flie petitioaer aiid fair submission of Shri Kachhawaha, fhe respondent No.l/R,T.A. is directed to decide fhe appUcation of fhe petitioner wifhia six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It would be fhe duly of fhe petitioner to serve fhe copy ofthis order to respondent No. 1. With fhe above obsewation, the petition is disposed of. It is being made clear fhat this Court has not expressed any opiaion upon merits of fhe case aad the competeiit aufhority will not be iafluenced by aay order or observation passed by fhis Court m fhe present writ petition. The aufhority would be at liberty to decide fhe case strictiy ia accordaace wifh law aad on fhe basis of pleaduigs aad evidence of the parties. —— Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge