HIOHCOl^^OF^CHHATTISGI^HATBILASPU^^^ 8B: HQN»BLB8HRI JUSTICB PRITINKBR DIW^KER WJP.J^Tl KO. 2038^2009 PBTITIOMBR M/s. Dubey Tmvels, Thro Partacr Brijcsh Dubcy, 34 years, S/o, Maoi Dubey, Fafadih, Raipiir I^SPONDBN1» Versus 1. Regional Transport Aufhonty, C,G, Raipur 2. State of Chhattisgarh, By Secrctaiy Transport Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur WRIT PBTITIOB UHDBR ARTICLB 227 QF THB CONSTITUTSON OP INDIA Aooearance: Shri Raja Shacma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate General for fhe State. Shri Shailendra Kumar Bajapi, coiinsel for the mtervener. ORALORDER (23.04.2009V Leamed counsel for ffcie petitioner submits fbiat he has filed aa application seeking formal amendment ia fhe writ petition aad impteading State Govemment as respondent No.2, Por fhe reasons mentioned in the application, tbe same is aUowed, Learaed coiuisel for fhe petitioner to caxry out fhe amendment dunng fhe course of the day m fhe Court itself. ^y\ {^^. Contexitioii of ftie couxisel for the petitioner is that he has appUed for temporary penait on 04,03.2009 axid fhe said application has uot been decided tUl date. Leamed coiuisel for fhe State very fairly submite tiiat fhis application would be decided by fhe competent autihiority afiter due consideration wifhm si?c weeks as on account of present ongoing elections, code of conduct is appUcable, fhe appUcation could not be decided. Learaed counsel appearmg for the iiitervesier submdts that fhe present writ petition is not mamtainable, I have heard coxiiisel for fhe respective paities. Considenng fhe request of fhe petitioner aad iair subniission of Shn Kachhawaha, fhe respondent No.l/R.T,A, is dirccted to decide tiie application of tihie petitioner withia six weeks from fhe date of receipt of fhis oxxler. Itwoiild be fhe duty offtiepetitioiier to senre fhe copy offhis onler to respondent No. 1, Wifh the above obseryation, fhe petitioii is disposed of It is beiag niade clear fhat fhis Coiirt has not expressed any opinion upon xoierits of fhe case aad fhe coinpetent aufhority wiU not be mfluenced by aay order or observation passed by fhis Court in fhe present writ petition. The aufhority would be at liberty to decide fhe case strictly ia accordaace wifh law and on fhe basis of pleadiag®and evidence offhe pardes. — Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge