^ ^F-^ ip^--o'r~ s.&e-e, HK3H COURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATriSGARH: Bll.ASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ PgTmONER RESeONDeNT Present: W.P.tClNo,47?7of2(»06 Bijay Kumar Gupte S/o B.P. Gupta Aged about 42 years P.0. Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS State af Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Transpwt Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Rafpur (C.G.) Shri Ajay Shrivastava, teamed counsel for the p^itioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, leamed Govt. Adv. for the State. QRALORDER tPassed on 04th September, 2006) This is a totally frivolous and misconceh/ed writ petition. The facts ofthe case, in brfef, are as follows:- The State Government of Chhattisgarh issued a notification on 08-12-20re proposing certain amendments in Motor Vehicte Rules calling fbr objecfions / suggestions, if any, from the public at large and affected persons. It is stated that in response to ttiat notification, the petitioner submitted his objections on 13-12-2005. When the matter stood thus, this writ pefition is filed for a direcfion to the respondent-State to consicter the objections filed by ttie petitioner, within two weeks. (2) Issuing mandamus to the respondent-State to consider the objecttons filed by ttie petitioner would not arise at this stage unless it is shown that the Govemment has amended the rule or is about to amend ttie Nte without considering the objections of the petitioner. That is not the case of the peUtioner. Under no circumstance, mandamus or directions shall be issued to the State Govemment to amend the rule or ^ to exercise the rule-making power in a particular way, simply because, the Govemment has issued notification calling for objections / suggesUons from the public at large and affected interest. From that fact itseff, it could not be said that the State Govemment would amend the rule without considering the objections. Altematively, it needs to be noticed that simply because the State Govemment has calted for objections / suggestions from the publfo at large and mterested persons, that circumstance itself would not oblige the State Govemment to amend the rule as a matter of legal obligation. Such a duty cannot be culled-out from the statute under which Uie Government intends to exercise the rule- mata'ng poweror any other public law statute. The writ petition is devoid of merit, premature as well as misconceived and it is accordingty dismissed. Nocosts. I Sd/- ChiefJustice