I Sing'. "sncti, ^ 51nB.,^( C' IN TME HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARM AT BILASPUR WRITPETITIONNo.1^3 /2005 V PETITIONER / Nirmal Singh, S/or Shri Guru '7 -.. <-^ Bachan Singh, Aged about 29 ..-'. w ^- - ^- V<^i3^. < years, R/o. Sector-2, Qtr. No. ^•^^••""./-^* t>^ ' " .>•" ^..•••"",%'^'""" ...•••"" (SV- .^••'fc ..-••^t >---CL RESPONDENTS 29/F/3, Bhilainagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS ^°-«<-"', ^',,ryS. <!''•.< (S*1" w •' 2. State ofChhattisgarh, Through it' s Secretary, Department of Transport, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. , 3. Amarjit Singh, Bus Operator, R/o. Khudko, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF TIBTE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-22 sn^rw f^ri^ail^r ra!(!te sb1 » SS! "!fl<ll<l<l, CTTn+1'ls, Rldlti^ Sii^i ^ach , W?STsRW"""""""m]"V^ 2MS~ Rl'b'A" '"""'"""" 311^1 SWIIWHfitf 9-3-200S Mr. B.K. Rawat, counsel fa| Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, Deput No-1 and 2. Heard on admission.' By this writ petition undei petjtioner's grievance is that resj grant of permit on the route from| and Anjora for grant of stege car< No.CG-07/E1161. The petititinsil 'from Durg td Patewa ana is objection before the Regiohal Trs that without formuiation of t!' sonteniplateci. uncieF, Seclfen ,6^ appiication of respondent No.3 RTA is not dsdding ihe obje| appficationofthe petitioner hersi^ Learned counseifor the pj 'ssued to the RTA for not consic|i the route has not been formuiatecl Sn my considerea opinion, that s'mpty respondent No.3 ha^ which the patitioner has filed o( Dermit or rejected the objeciion passing any order by the RTAJ order has been passed against ttjf thepetitloner. - ^ Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents t)i<<Frt<fl-< Hi*fnT^ fei^ <R|<^|< ^sri^iTan^r lArticle 226 of the Constitution of India, the res()ondent No.3 herein fiied an appiication Tor Rajnandgaon to Durg via Gatula, Tedesara (iage permit for minl bus bearing registration who is aiready a permit hoider on th& route o^eratirig the Busdh S regujar permlt fiied [nsport Authority on 16-2-2005 with a prayer |e route By the SSaie Government as (3) (aT) of the.Motor Vehteies Act, the ;annot be considered, and since then. the l^ion and not passing any order on the ititioner submits that a writ pf mandamus be jering the application of respondent No.3 as fay the SSate Govemment: the writ pctition is premature for the reason filed an appiication for grant of permit to sjection and the RTA has not granted any |of the petitioner hereln. Thersfore. wiihout it cannot be considered that any adverse petltioner herein. XI-HC-22 sn^r^iT R.-<i=b3n^T StilifhBfttT 9hW<f) ;oma wcy 3^''<ii<iici<<,8)Tflwis, Ricii'yy 3Tli??I qi*<MTa»11<») ;?lq;l^ ^..(^.^^^ 200 5" 311^1 «<fimBf?(T In the circumstances, the Consequently, M.(W.)P. disposedof. w|rit petitlon js dismissed being pre-mature. No.644/2005 and i.A.No.1611/2005 stand »wFc]<f)'fii*)<'iTffte'^)'<Ri«i< ^iari^ra'sn^T Sd/- LC.Bhadoo Judge (<fl^y^)