•I SINGLE BENCH ( . ^d l^"" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. ^GS^ / 2010 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITIUTION OF THE INDIA PETITIONER ^ \^'"°" RESPONDENTS ^^ Ashok Kumar Rathore S/o. \..a'.<>';j\'..^'•"? Shri Ramji Rathore, aged »••' ,.-•*"' about 40 years, R/o. Village - Sukli, Distt Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) VERSUS ^ 1. Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Secretary, Regional - Transport Authority, Bilaspur (C.G.) 01. PARTICULARS OF THE PETIT!QNER, M_.. B^ B--i' iir lill' R' ws': la,IIs I: .lii 'M- II. 8si - w\^. B! K. 1$' .${&: siiirfi. !:(• 1 L i !: Kl. Igl': sa?- lijl^'- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (-0 No. 5607 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ashok Kumar Rathore. Versus Amit Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur Others. (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ansul R. Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day ofSeptember, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities are not deciding the application dated 2.7.2010 (Annexure P/l) of the petitioner for grant of regular stage carriage permit on the route Girodhpuri to Jailgaon. 2. Without waiting for reasonable time for a decision of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred this petition on 21.09.2010. The petitioner ought to have waited for some reasonable time. When the applications are pending consideration before the respondent-authorities, there is no occasion to entertain a second parallel proceeding under exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constifution oflndia. 3. A seven Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, observed as under: "17. Redressal of grievances in the hands of the departmental authorities take an unduly long time. That is so on account of the fact that no attention is ordinarily bestowed over these matters and they are not considered to be govemmental business ofsubstance. This approach hast to be deprecated and authorities on whom power is vested to dispose of appeals and revisions under the Service Rules must dispose of such matters as expeditiously as possible. Ordinarily, a period of three to six months should be the outer limit. That would discipline the system and keep the public servant away from a protracted period oflitigation." 4. Applying the well settled principle of law to the facts ofthe case on hand, the petition is dismissed being premature at this stage. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ; (1989) 4 SCC 582 lll^ IBS i:Ni:- '^m