C (gWWV IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 2423 /ZOO4 Manish Kumar Bafna, ‘ S/o. ,{V Manakchand Bafna, Aged about 33 w \fx W years, R/o. Gang Line Rainandgaon w“ \“ (C5,) \ VERSUS PETITIONER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONST ITUTION OF INDIA RESPONDENTS 1. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh at Raipur. 2. Secretary Regional Transport Authority Raipur (C.G.) Shn' N.K. Agrawal, Daputy Advocate General for the respomlent/ State. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of inaia, b‘ :ing aggn'eved by non—consideration of hie application for temporajy and regular permits for the route Dalli to Rajnaildgaon Via Lohar a, and Devri. The pen'tionex’s petition petitioner is plying his siage ‘cz the sirengfh of temporaxy pe: permit was issued for the abOVt l The petitioner ha$ again sub further temporary stage earriag but the application has not ye R.T.‘A,, Raipur 311d that is petitioner. The petitioner haS stage carriage permit on the ab considered. No return has been filed 1 have heard learned c0113 Learned couneel for the requesting that the Secretarj consider his application and p with law. is that since last three years, the briage permit on the above route on units continuously. The temporaiy E route from 2, 1.2004 to 30.6.2004, knitted an application for grant of re permit with enect from 1.7.2004, t been considered by the Secretary, causing irreparable loss to the also filed an application for regular ave route hut that also has not been on behalf of the State. 1sel for the parties. petitioner submits that he is only R.T.A., Raipur, be clirected to ass appropriate order in accordance ’ WWW XI—HC~22 00 mm Wm m afga amzwm?W WNW?W Wm M avwm 20/08 i200G Shn' B. K. Rawat, counSEI for thE petitioner, amia;sr:»rra g» g XI-HC~22 \" Rqiul Swim In the Qst place, ths ‘ GEneral is that ths pEtifioner caniage permit eontinuously, That for coilsideration of the passing appropn‘ate order to passed. ,‘ Having heard the learned regard‘ t0 the facts and cirem RITA; ought i0 have considc appropn‘ate order in aceorclaJm ‘the application, and not pas Therefore, the respondents are t of the petitioner and pass apy law. With the aforesaid obse; petition stands disp'0sed oii Cr and I.A.No. 5454/ 2004 also ste Certified copy as per rules, )bjection of the Deputy Advocate again claimed for temporary stage But at m6 same tjm€ he submits application .of the petitioner and that effect suitable order may be t jcounsel for the parties and having stances of the case, the Secretary, éred the application and passed smith law. But, non—considering :sing any order is not justified flirected to consider the application ropriate order in accordance with l “vations and directions, this writ insequently, M.W. P.'No.2 147/ 2004 Lnd disposed of. Sdl- L.C.BHAD°° :Judge [‘13%W _ ,_ r /