^ ^} IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.) W.P. 227. N0. '^&L^ f 2009 PETITONER (Applicant) /^/ ..••'•-.••" ..•' AV / .o^A^/ . fr^<'t7.\^>/ J<;'^^-7 '>/\:fW •<? ^ Aashutosh Tiwari aged about fi4-z- years, S/o- D. Tiwari, R/o- Patelpara Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) Through power of attorney holder, Dhirendra Nath Tiwari S/o- Late Hari Prasad Tiwari, aged about 42 years, R/o- Patelpara Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Applicant before the S.T.A.T.) -C-y cV" <yy --.^ !?' RESPONDNETS VERSUS 1. 1. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3. Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 4. Prince Babra Transport, Tbrough the proprietor Malendra, Singh Babra R/o- Namnakala, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) (Non-Applicant before the S.T.A.T.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. _ ^RLICUL&°-^r^°"^-^- M <?r h^ti.^^3^^' i:S;%®' HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 4819 OF 2009 PETAT10NER Aashutosh Tiwari (Applicant) RESPONDENTS Versus State TransporS Appellate Tribunal & Others (Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench ; Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri S.K. Bajpai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur^BaHet-tawyer for the State. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondentNo-4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 7th day of July, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petifioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2009 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the State Transport Appeilate Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, and the order dated 27-2-2009 (Annexure - P/7) passed by the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Sarguja, Ambikapur. 2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the period of the permit issued in favour of the petitioner has come to an end on 31-3-2010. Thus, the issue involved herein has become academic. 3. 1 have heard leaned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 4. The dispute involved in the case on hand is that the petitioner is plying the stage carriage on the basis of permanent permit on the route Ambikapur to Jashpur via Manora, Aasta, Kusmi, -.- - ^ K.t.slS-'S!'' 6. Deepadih, Shankargarh, Bariyo & Rajpur, as is evident from Annexures P/2& P/3. Therespondent No.4 has been granted permit vide Annexure P/4 on the same route i.e. Karoundha to Portenga via Kusmi, Aasta, Manora & Jashpur. There is clash of timing. The petitioner was granted permit on the said route for the period from 01/04/2005 to 31/03/2010. Permit of the petitioner has come to an end on 31/03/2010. Thus, this petition has become infructuous. The petitioner, by way of amendment, seeks to challenge the route granted to the petitioner on the basis of subsequent permits granted to him. This petition arise from the order dated 15/07/2009 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the subsequent development cannot be questioned in the present petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India particularly when the dispute has become infructuous. It is well settled principle of law that if the matter has become infructuous on the facts of the case and question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessary to examine the case, as observed by Supreme Court in several matters. (See Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi , Secretary, Ministry of Information & Boradcasting, Govt. of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and others , State of 'AIR 1959 SC 149 21987(Supp)SCC93 3 1995(2)8cc 161 »''Y r-ar,. v-^,<</' " .^<-;?' Gowri Manipur and others v. Chandam Manihar Singh , Amit Das v. State of Bihar and Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others ). 7. Applying the well settled principle of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner is not entitted to any relief. 8. Inthe result, thewritpetition fails and is herebydismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ^^:^':rJ'J'1