-1- 2025:CGHC:29837 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2628 of 2019 Tikesh Vaishnav S/o Shri Baldaulal Vaishnav Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 10, House No. 119, Gole Bazar, Thankhamariya, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Transport DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport officer RTO Office, Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudeep Johri, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kind enough to call the record of the petitioner. 10.2.That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- pass a direction for the consideration of the complaint Annexure P/4 in the interest of justice. 10.3. That the Hon’ble Court may kind enough to pass any other order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Johri would submit that the petitioner had financed a bus from Cholamandalam Finance Company Limited in his name, bearing registration number CG-07-E-1016. He would further submit that the vehicle was taken back by the financer on account of default in payment of EMIs, on 06.02.2018. He would further contend that a complaint was made on 12.07.2018 to respondent No.2 regarding the illegal operation of the vehicle using a forged number plate, while the portal of the respondent continued to show the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. He would submit that till date, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities. He would submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No.2 to decide the pending complaint made by the petitioner on 12.07.2018 expeditiously. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by Mr. Johri, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending complaint dated 12.07.2018 expeditiously strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim