gmmh \ Sgmw \03V cg /V, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. §§3 [2005 I’Durga Motor Service, Through Partner, B.B. Gupta, g/gy) Jeetan Prasad Gupta, Aged about 38 years, R/o. Purarla Bus Stand, Ambikapur District Ambikapur (C.G.) VERSUS PETITIONER State Trari’sport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), RESPONDENTS ,/ 1 . Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.)‘. Shri Gurbhej Singh Chhabra, ‘ S/o. Shri Raghubeer Singh Chhabra,' R/o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur. I ‘ /"”V WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-ZZ WW WW Vi \g 55 . )3}: . . a1 ‘ 200 . ...............................W .......................... \.. The petitioner has preferr this writ petition seeking relief that a writ of mandamus be issued to the e Transport Appeiiate Tribunal. Raipur to decide the revision filed before it under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order of the Regioni Transport Authority, Chhatdsgarh, Raipur E granting regular permit on the rou The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 applied for grant o regular stage carriage permit on r e route from Ambikapur to Ramanujganj, and an objection was raised by the ptitioner on thegrou’nd that the route has not been formulated by the State Go ernment tixing the number of sage carriages on the route in question and n other grounds. However, the Regional Transport Authority vlde itsorder dated 20-7-2004, in spite of the objection by the petitioner, granted regular pe mit to respondent No.3, the same is without jurisdiction, against which the pet ioner preferred a revision before the STAT, in the month of August, 2004, and from Ambikapur to Ramanujganj. t lied for grant of stay against the order of the RTA. Even after the lapse of ve months period, the learned Tribune! has neither decided the stay applica ion nor the revision petition. Therefore, the STAT be directed to decide the vision petition, at me earliest, in accordance with law. ihave heard teamed ooun for the parties. si . Learned counsel for the petitioner submim that there is no much pendency before the STAT, Rai r, and even then, the revision petition is not e S t f p a man mm mmatm mwn‘wm mm asmm 1$-2005 Shri B.K. Rawat, counsel fo the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, =7 uty Government Advocate for the State/ respondent No.2. XI—HC—22 I have ascertained the t about the pendency of cases before the STAT, Raipur, from the Registry fthis Court and I have been informed that the submission made by learned cou sel for the petitioner is not without foundation. When there is no much penden y before the STAT, then the teamed Tribunal ought to have decided the cases peditiously, in accomance with law. ln the circumstances, the arned STAT. Raipur is directed to decide the revision petition, as early as possi le, in accordance with law. of. Consequently, IA.No.1 17 2005 stands disposed of. Parties are entitled for certi ied copy of this// order. stil— L.C.Bha"°“ 3udge c x