SIMIBIE i t! K ^ -...•? <?^A^, !.IFIt^ ^ ^-•:-^^i^ ^ c^ 1^x7-^ IN THE HON'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPURIC.G.) W.P.(C) No. ^1-,L of 2010 •^ PETITIONER ,^^^' ^.•^••K^ .^^ ^y^' ^y . • VERSUS RESPONDENT : /'' Jitendra Singh Thakur, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Ramesh Singh Thakur, Bus Operator, R/o Village & Post Sargaon, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA w^' ®! ^ ^^1. ^1:;:.'^!'1 ll^ ffii'i IKi;;.ir Ml. :SB-' 1 :li'^!' Bi;l!l r!Ij: PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (-Q No. 5617 of 2010 Jitendra Singh Thakur. Versus RESPONDENTS Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Santosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. forthe State/respondent. ORDER CORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of September, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities are not decidingthe application dated 02.07.2010 (Annexure P/2) ofthe petitioner for change in timing ofthe regular permit No. 2415/B/05, on the route Paikaria to Bilaspur. 2. Without waiting for reasonable time for a decision of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred this petition on 27.09.2010. 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 ' Constitution oflndia. 3. A seven Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh , 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 of substance. 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 of the case on hand, the petition is dismissed being premature at this stage. SA/- Amit ^v ttiom ' (1989) 4 SCC 582