^^'••:" s" C^l^s^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0. ^,^ /2010 WRIT PETITION UNDBR ARTICLE 226 OF THB CONSTITIUtlON OF THB INDIA PETITIONER ^!^otf,-. <2.fr-l^1°"g3^r ±^^^^°:'- ^^ ^•&tS& RESPONDENTS ;^: /'"^. .. —.^ :?^ ^, 'lw^.Mh^ Santosh Dewangan S/o. Shri J.R. Dewangan, aged about 38 years, R/o. - Peepal Chowk, Dhuri Para, Takhatpur, Distt. Biliispur (C.G.) VERSUS €"" 1. Regional Transport Authority Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^ ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon^ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra W.P.fONo. 3362/2010 PETITIONER : Santosh Dewangan Versus RESPONDENTS : Regional TransportAuthority Bilaspur (C.G.) and Another. Aopearance: Shri Anshul R. Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (09.07.2010) In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has raised a grievance that he has moved an application vide Annexure P-1 on 11/02/2010, before respondent No.l for grant ofregular stagecarriage permit, on the route Takhatpur to Gangdwari via Pathariya with two retum trips daily. Further, till date the application has not been disposed ofby the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fiirther submits that his only prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a direction to the respondents to consider the application for grant of regular stage carriage permit in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the mles framed therein. ^^ '^•?i'''^i^ ^^ lv ^^ >J -^^ESS^ •^) -2- \ 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent submits that if the applications are complete in all respect and are pending before concemed authority, it shall be communicated to the authority to dispose of the application within reasonable time fi-om the date of production ofcertified copy ofthe order by the petitioner. 4. In view of the statement made by leamed counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the respondent No.l to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 11/02/2010 within a reasonable time from the date of production of certified copy ofthis order by the petitioner. 5. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion about the right and entitlement of the petitioner and that the concemed authority shall examine the application on its own merit and dispose ofthe same in accordance with law. Sd/- prashantKumarMishra Judge