<^F[^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.i w.p.^a.NO. u 6 63 /20io PETITONER (Intervener) RESPONDNETS ApDellant before S.T.A.T. \y^-^^ '.-^^1%^-' ^^^ tp-;^fi'\/y."1"' VERSUS 1. 2. 3. SantoshSahu S/o Late Fuluram Sahu, aged about 42 years, R/o New Bus Stand Wad No. 2 Bemetara, District- Durg (C.G.). State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur (C.G.) Regional Transport Authority Raipur, Division Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) M/s New Jeevan Mahendra Bus Service, Pagariys Complex New Bus Stand Raipur, Through Propriefor Sandeep Kaur Gill W/o Lakhwant Singh Gill, New Bus Stand Pandri Raipur, DistFict Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CQNSTITUTIONOF INDIA. ^- i; ^ "';>^n2:i-it<^)o ^wf^ ^>'^ HIGH COURT ORriCHMATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRrrpETn'ioN (c»NO. 4663 OF 2010 Petitioner Versus Respondents Santosh Sahu State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- ShriAman Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N.Roy, Panel Lawyerforthe State. Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER(ORALl (Passed on 15th day of November, 2010) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the State Transport ApF»llate Tribunal, Raipur; whereunder the application dated 1 .10.2009 for grant of temporary permit for the period from 16.10.2009 to 15.2.2010 was In question. The period of permit has already come to an end. Thus, nothing survives for adjudteatlon. 2. It is well settled principtes of law that for vrant of facts, no question, however, important may be for academic purpose, should be entertained by the High Court for adjudication. (See Sasftesftar Nath vs. Comnssaoner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rafasttian and another', DharSpakar Madan Lal Agrawal vs. Rafv Gandh^, Secretary, Ministoy of Inforamffon & BroadcasBng, Govt. of Indla and offiers vs. Cricket AssodaSon of Bengat and offiers3, State of Manfpiir and others vs. Chandam Man iar SSngh4, Amlt Das vs. State ofShais and Prakash Singh Badal and anotfwr vs. State of Punjab and other^). 3. Thus, the petition is dismissed, as having become infructuous. No order asto costs. ~^~—~— Sd/- Satisfa K. Agnihotri 'AIR 1959 SC 148 2 1987 (Supp) SCG 93 3 {1995$ 2 SCC 161 4(1999)7SCC503 SC2001}7SCCe57 s (20}7) 1 SCC 1 Judge