^- "^. ^t ^ON HICTiCOVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB :HOW*BLB SHRI JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIWAKBR W.P.ja27) N0. 2039/2009 PETITIONBR M/s. Dubey Travels, Thro Partner BriJesh Dubey, 34 years, S/o, Maai Dubey, Pafadih, Raipixr RBSPONDBNTS Versus 1. 2. Regional Transport Aufbiority, C.G. Jagdalpur State of Chhattisgarh, By Secrctaiy Traiisport Department, D.K.S.Bhawaa, Raipur WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLB 227 OF THB COHSTITUTSON OF INDIA Appearaace: Shri Raja Sharma, counsel for the petitioner, ShriA,S,Kachhawaha, Dy, Advocate Gencral for the State/rcspondent No.2. ORAL ORDBR (23.04.2009) Learaed coiio.sel for fhe petitioner subxaits that he has filed aix application seekiag formal amendineBt ia &e writ petition aad impleadmg State Goverament as respondent No,2, For the reasons mentioned m fhe application, fhe saiae is allowed, Leanied counsel for ftie petitioner to carry oiit fhe aaiendment during fhe course of the day m fhe Court itself. Contention offhe counsel for fhe petitioner is tiiat he has applied for tempoxary permit on 23.12.2008 aad Uie said application has not been decided till date. .-^y ""s%^^^ 13 Leamed coiinsel for fhe State very fairly submits that fhis appUcation would be decided by fhe competent aufhorily after due consideration wifhia six weeks as 011 account of present ongoiag elections, code of conduct is appUcable^ fhe appUcation could not be decided. I have heard counsel for fhe respective parties. Consideniig the request of fhe petitioner and fair submission of Shri Kachhawaha, fhe respondent No.l/R,T,A. is dirccted to decide fhe appUcation of fhe petitioner witibia six weeks fix)m fhe date of receipt of fhis order, It would be the duty of fhe petitioner to serve fhe copy offhis order to respondent No. 1. Wifh fhe above observation, the petition is disposed of. It is beiag inade clear that fhis Court has not expressed aay opiaion upon ments of fhe case aad ftie conipetent aufhority will not be iafluenced by aay order or obsewation passed by fhis Court ia fhe present writ petition. The aufhority would be at Uberty to decide fhe case stricfly ia accordaiice wifh law and on tibie basis of pleadiags aiid evidence of fhe parties. — Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge c^>