IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3725 of 2011. Decided on: 8th July, 2011. Shanta Thakur. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the Petitioner. : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed mainly on the following prayer: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may also kindly be issued directing the respondent No.3 to entertain the applications of the petitioner for issuance of route permits to the Routes from Dharja to Dharja via Jonajee, Solan, Dharampur, Parwanoo, Kalka, Brotiwala, Baddi, Nalagarh, Ramshahar, Ladach, Chambatra, Gamberpul, Kunihar, Sabathu, Solan, Jonajee I-RT as mentioned above and as applied for and routes permit may kindly be ordered to be issued to the petitioner as has been done by respondent No.3 in the other cases.” 2 2. In the preliminary submissions of the reply at paras 3 to 6, it is stated as follows: “(3) That so far the applications of the petitioner is concerned she never deposited the documents with the reply respondents. It is true that the petitioner produce two applications on the prescribed proforma for route permit and got it marked from the office Superintendent on 29.1.2010 and paid the fee vide receipt Nos.SL43634 and SL 43635 on dated 1.2.2010 after a gap of two days with cashier. After depositing the fee the petitioner did not deposit the application form with the concerned dealing Assistant and taken away the applications with her knowingly and without deposited the documents in the office the applications could not be placed before the RTA. It is pointed here that if the petitioner had deposited the documents with the office then from where she have got the copies of the application whereas she has never got applied these copies from the office through RTI or simple application neither she has stated in her petition service where from she got these copies. 4. That the petitioner is misleading the Hon’ble High Court and claiming the route permits for which route permit she has never submit the documents. 5. That the present petition is fabricated one and is purely an after thought. Thus the petition filed by the petitioner is specifically false and baseless. 6. That it is also relevant to pointed out here that a petition on same ground was filed by the husband of the petitioner which was decided by the Hon’ble Court copy of judgment enclosed as Annexure R-1.” 3. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law as stated in the reply and when such action is taken by the petitioner in accordance with law, the RTA will take further steps, as required under 3 the law in the next meeting, after the submission of the proper application. A copy of this judgment will be produced by the petitioner before the RTA. 4. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 8th July, 2011. (Justice V.K. Sharma), (tr)` Judge. 4