HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2115 of2001 ' . Deepak Lal Shah son of G.M. Seth, aged about 40 years, resident of opposite policc Line, Dhamtari Road, Raipur (CG). Madan Lal Sahu S/o Man Singh Sahu, C/o Baba Tmnsport, Raipur (0G) 3. Gum Prasad Dewangan son of N.P. Dewangan Ca’o Baba Transpmt, Bilaspur (CG). 4. Baldev Singh son of Inder Singh C/o Baba Transport, Raipur (CG). t 5. Baba Bharat Transport, Dewangan Raipur S/o Ishwar (CG). Dcwaggan "y: C/o 6. Transport, G.P. Sinha Raipur son (CG). of C.R. Sinha C/o Baba 7, M/s Coal Feeders Prop: V.K. Lum'a through General Manager, Deepak Lal Shah, Baba Transport, Rama Bhata, Raipur (CG). VERSUS \W/ PETITIONERS "IgE§PWOm1§_I__)EN'£§ : l. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Transport, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). ; 2. Registering Authonty/RTO, Raipur. ‘ 3. Area Manager; Rajgamar Project, Korba (CG). (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.)- Present : Shri Amit Kumar Shanna, Advocate for the petitioners Shri Vivek Shanna, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 16m ofNovember, 2007) 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondent No. 2. to make the entry of gross laden weight to 18000 Kg. in the registration particulars in respect of goods vehicles owned by the petitioners to enable the petitioners to transport the goods The petitioners have not made out a case indioting that there is violation of legal right or any other right which has accrued to them. This petition is vague. The prayer is Wide and vague by seeking a direction to the respondents to make entry of gross laden weight to 18000 Kg. in the registration particulars in respect of goods vehicles owned by the petitioners. Even otherwise, no mandamus ofthe above nature could be issued to the authorities concerned without examining the facts of the accordingly. V case. . ' . . 3. vlfthe petitioners continue to be aggieved, there is an alternative remedy of appeal under the provisions of law, which the petitioners have failed to avail. 4. In View of the foregoingo there is no merit in the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. M(W)P 158/2002 and 690/2002 stands disposed of. /sd.. K Ag“"“°“‘