^s S2i®I.E:BENGtt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH W.P. ^°}/05 PETmONER ^^ ^^?1 •<^:.;""^'^...-><<" ^-•".^•^y ^^y' ^- . Raju Singh Rajpurohit S/o K.S. Rajpurohit/ M.RH.B.Complex/NewBusStand, Durg(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENT^ ( 1. Stale Government of Chhattisgarh ThroughTransport Secretory, Raipur (C.G.) / 2. RegionalTransportAuthQrity Raipur(C.G.) /-1.11-,^-.''1.-1;:1. 'i^^^ WRIT PETITION UNDERARTECLE 226 OF CONSTETUTION OF INDIA »fPR$T^<TT^i W^ wy.iKI |CX.|^U'"^l^|<».|I'6|iO»|ltl^ ,.^r.^.lls^.lQS;^ ati^sr^R(ijcrirg^) WE20P 3D^CTq»rf^!lN ^T8ff3n^CTw<ii<R '\~7 \ g^ciittNxiRa an^r the 14.9.2005 Shri Ajay^Shrivastava, cour^ Shrl Yashwant Singh Thaku| Heard. By the instant petition directing respondent NoJ-Region^ providing the certified copy of permit of vehicie number C^04-^ Shri Yakub © Asfhaq^Sharif. Learned coun^ej for th4 petitioner as well as isaid Yakub grant of permit. The appiicatior| permit aiiowed iand he Wa|. appiicGtlon of said Yakub ©As^ that rejection orden the petiti| certifled copy but the.sanie is further submits thatjsaid Shri Yd appea! befor-e the State Transpo| taking the ground that his applica| Counse! for the petitioner^ order and moreoverlrespondent STAT and whether any order wa^ ,<pi^J<?<0»i*iitt€l>T^f(^u£l'x(Sit$ix ^3lRl*l OT^jfi ? r ^r^^ sel for the petitioner, j \ Sovt- ^dvocate for the State. petitioner has requested for d Transport Authorit^j Rxiipur for !'he order regarding r^Jection. of 1ATO0346, which was appiied by-one petitioner submits | that the @ Asfhaq Sharif had appiied for of the petitioner fqr grant of s granted permit, whereas/ the ^aq Sharif was rejected and for )ner hereiri has applied for the not being provjded.to him. He kub ©.Asfhaq'Sharif lias filed an ^t Administrative 'Tribunai, .Raipur 'ion was not considered* is not abie to-tel! the date of No.l-RTA -is'a party' before the passed on the applicafion of sdd •;.;i^KS/2005-20,000 XI-HC-78 ^v^'^^nw^t, tp-^1^<Ko, Roixiyx *ii*trtia?Tr^................................. 3TT^?T q^P (yii^q<g) ^200 3n^$T<prR^i0 ?T2TT3TT^^T^+1W (?^-^ / ^ (^ ^ ^ ^ ^^W^rf^T 3TT^$T Shri Yakub @ Asfhaq Sharif , reply before the 5TAT. In view of the above/ I petition has no merit, same i. accordingly dismlssed. <pi<i[o41ri *ii^c>T^"(^v<£l\Rn^i>< ^3rf^T3IT^$T the RTA sha!! fite the repiy in its im of the opinion that the present i liable to • be dismissed and it is Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge