;•&' :"WS!S.'^ WSss S -aisi.'.iag,; M al HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BIIASPUR PETmONER RESPONDENTS WRTT PETmON (0 No. 4841 of2008 , 1. Gopal Sahu S/o Shri D.R.Sahu, AGeda bout 32 years, R/o Paehpedi NaKa, Raipttr, Distt. Raipw(C.G.) 2. Anoop Sahu S/o Shri D.R-Sahu, Aged about 30 years; R/o Pachpedi Nata- Raipur, Distt. Raipur(C.G.) , ' VERSUS 1. State Govt. of Chhattisgarfi, Throagh- Secretary, D.K.S7 Bhawan, Raipiit, D&tt. Raipur(C.O.) 2. State Traiisport Authority D.K.S. Bhawas, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.O.) , ; 3. Secretary, State Tratispqft Authority D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur Distt.— Raipius(C.Gi) < re WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE eONSTnroTTON QF INDIA': • : ,: .' :, '•:s\.'": . ' SBs Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aiirihotri, J. Present: ShriAjayShrivastava.Advocatefwthepetitkmw. . Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate General with.Shri Shashank ThakunPanelLawyerlbrfheState/respaaidents. s ^ ORALOaDER : -:- - - -i" . - ' (Passed on 01"dayof Sqitember, 2008) 1. With the c<Misent oflhe parties, the matter is taken up for heanng finally. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits thatAe petitioner has filed an application fw grant ofstate earriagfi permit in August, 2008. The case ofthe petitioner has not been listed fw coBsideration in the agenda. He fiuther submits that there are other applications with rega-d to the same routes for which the applications have been made by the pemut seelsera. 3. There is no question of infi-acticm of any stafartory Rules and Regulations. However, in view ofthe facts ofthe case, it is appropriateifthe:committee is directed to consider the case oflfae petitioner along with other stmilarfy situated applications, as early as possible, for a particular route to be considered together aad pass appropriate order fa accordaace vrith law on its own merits. ^^3 -2- 4. Shri Harit submits Aat if tiie applicaticms have been made within the prescribed time, if any, all the applications are necessary to be considered for a particular route in the agenda, toeether. 5. In view ofthe foregoing avemients made by teamed counsel for the parties, it is directed that all the applieations gw a particulw route shall be considered together m the agenda, whether applications are Aown n the agenda or not. The petition accordingly stands disposed of. No arder aMo costs. 6. Consequently, I.A. No. 01, application for interim relief, a!ro stands disposed of. 7. Certified copy, today itsetf. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anrit ss^^-