,^1^<, ^?",A ' <4 cay HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 1951 of2008 Petitioner Pushpraj Sharma, aged about 22 yeai's, s/o Shii Moti Lal Sharm-a, R/o opposite Diadayal Udyan, Vyapar VUiar, BUaspur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Regioaal Traasport Aufhority, Cliliattisgarh. Raipur 2. Secretaiy, Regional Traasport Aufhorily, Bilaspur(C.G.) 3. State Traasport AppeUate Tribunal, fhrough Presiding OfiScer, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. 4. Saadeep Jaiswal, s/o Shri Lakhaii Lal Jaiswal, R/o vfflage - Kherapodi, Distodct Bilaspur (C.G.) (Writ Petition underArticle 226j'227 ofthe Constitution oflndia) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotn J.) Shri Ashok Swamkar, Advocate for fhe petitioner. ShnAjit Siagh, Paiiel Lawyer for fhe respondents No. 1 aiid 2. Shri F. S. Khare, Advocate for fhe respondent No.4. O RD E R (orall ( Passed on titiis 24th day ofJuly, 2009) Heaid. The petitioner has filed this petition questionirig the order dated 1.3.2008 (Annexure P/9), passed by fhe respondent No.4 m Revision No. 215/2005. By order dated 5,5.2005 fhe petitioner was graated pennaaent peiTait to ply the passenger vehicle on the route 'Bilaspur to Marwahf. Beiag aggrieved, the respondent No.4 filed a revision before fhe respondent No.3, which was aUowed by impugned order dated 1.3.2008 (Aunexure P/9), whereby the order dated 5,5.2005, graiitmg permaaent periait to fhe petitioner, was rejected. } "5 Learaed counsel appearmg for fhe petitioner, on inLStructions, subnuts fhat durmg fhe pendency of fhe writ petition fhe petitioner has been graiited permit on aaofher route. Thus, accordiag to the petitioner, no adjudication is required at this stage. However, the petitioner niay be graated Hberty to niake a fresh appUcation for graat ofpenmt Leained counsel appearmg for fhe respondents have no objection. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, as havuig becoine uifructuous wifh tiie above-stated libe^. Sd/- Sarish K.Agnihotri Judge Thalmr