1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3169 of 2025 Decided on: 11.03.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vinay Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv Shrma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned acts of the respondents above stated which amounts to executive inaction may be quashed and set aside and directions may be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to run his bus from Nagrota to Sujanpur via Praur instead of via Rajhoon so that the distance covered may come as per published route Annexure P-1 and same will also correct the mistake in Annexure P-2 with respect to arrival of the bus of the petitioner back at Nagrota Bagwan at 9:15 A.M. whereas in Annexure P-2 only departure time of the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 petitioner from Nagrota Bagwan has been given as 8:30 A.M. i.e. prior to its arrival, will also be corrected. (ii) That in the alternative, respondents may be directed to consider and allow the petitioner the alternate routes available with the respondents as are shown in Annexure P-7 from serial No.50 to 52. (iii) That yet more in the alternative, respondents may be directed to pay damages to the petitioner to the tune of ₹30,00 lakhs or the price of the bus i.e. ₹25.00 lakhs in any eventuality to meets the ends of justice. (iv) That proforma respondents No. 5 and 6 may be directed to produce the record of surrendered route permit and time table issued to HRTC to run bus with respect to the route in question.” 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been issued Intra- State permit for Dharamshala- Shimla- Tapri route on 07.01.2025. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner raised in this writ petition though stands redressed, however, petitioner has some issues with respect to time table allotted to him for the aforesaid route permit as after travelling about 400 K.M from Dharamshala to reach Tapri at 13:55 hours, petitioner is supposed to leave the said station at 14:05 hours i.e. within 10 minutes; In this regard, petitioner has preferred a representation on 27.01.2026 to Regional Transport Officer, Bilaspur requesting for change in time table. However, no decision on the aforesaid representation has been communicated to the petitioner as yet. 3 3. In view of the subsequent events now placed on record and the submission that petitioner’s main relief stands redressed, this writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the concerned Regional Transport Officer/ Competent Authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner with respect to change of his time table and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 11, 2026 Judge yogesh