IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ ’ W.P. N0. 554 [2005 /Durga Mokor Service, Through aa 5?‘i’3' Partner, B.B. Gupta, S/o. Jeetan Prasad Gupta, Aged about 38 years,‘ R/o. Purana $‘a‘ ”L? Bus Stand, Ambikapur District .-" § PETITIONER ?‘e 6",“Y ‘ / Amblkapur (C. G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /"’1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), A. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.). Shri Gurbhej Singh Chhabra, S/o. Shri Raghubeer r Singh Chhabra, R/ o Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur. / WRIT PETITION UNDER’ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘ \‘V‘ I % H I 5 XI—HC-22 Wm_ ’ 111‘ 200$ m WWW WW§§$W a7aT%wan%aT shri B.K. Rawat, counse Shri Sumesh Bajaj, respondent No.2. The petitioner has pr'é this writ petition seeking relief that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State Transport Appeilate Tribunal, Raipur to ' decide the ap’peai med before it ‘under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order of the Reg onal Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur ranting regular permit on the r ute from Ambikapur to Ramanujganj. The case of the petitio er is that respondent No.3 applied for grant of regular stage carriage permit o the route from Ambikapur to Ramanujganj, and an objection was raised by th petitioner on the ground that the route has not been formulated by thevState ovemment fixing the number of stage earriages on the route in question an on other grounds. However, the Regional Transport Authority vide its or er dated 21 -7-2004, in spite of the objection by the petitioner, granted regular permit to respondent No.3, the same is without jurisdiction, against which the ' oner preferred an appeal before the STAT, in the month of August, 2004, an applied for grant of stay against the order of the RTA. Even atter the lapse f five monthsperiod, the learned Tribunat has neither decided the stay app ion nor the appeal. Theretore, the STAT be l directed to decide the appeal, the earliest, in accordance with law. fot the petitioner. eputy Government Advocate for the Shte/ l have heard learned co nsel for the parties. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no much ? pendency before the STAT, ipur, and even then, the appeal is not bein decided for a period of six mon s. r" f ' ' ! t e a XI-HC—22 i have asceminad. me‘ fact am; the .pe'nd'ency of cases beforé .ghe .1 STAT, Ralpur, fromthe Reg of this Court-ahd I.have been ihfarmed th'at me _' submission made by leamed c nsel fot the petitioner ls not wnnout foundation ' When there ls no much pend ncy before the STAT then me learned Tnbunel ought to have decided the cas expedihousw, m eocordance with law ‘ In the circumstances ch learned STAT Raipur is directed to decide the - - appeal as early as possible in ' cordance With law of. ,‘t/ ‘ . g titied cepyfofthis order.‘ . Sdl- v K L.C.Bhad“° Judge>f. i/’ i r