1 2025:CGHC:15103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3012 of 2019 1 - Kamaljeet Panthare S/o K.T. Panthare Aged About 54 Years R/o Lig 128, Sector 2, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Raipur., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Transport Authority, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Saroj Kumar Mahapatra S/o Late B.S. Mahapatra R/o Mahanty Pora, Kali Mandir Chowk, Bargarh, Odisha. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sudeep Johri, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.03.2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- “1- That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to call the record of the petitioner as well as other respondents No.1 & 2. 2-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to issue a writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/ directions in the nature of mandamus and to command the respondent no.1 & 2 to take appropriate action on the application of the petitioner. 3-That the Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to pass any appropriate writ, order or direction as deem fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a complaint under Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act was moved before the Additional Transport Commissioner, State of Chhattisgarh, Raipur on 21.1.2019, seeking cancellation of the permit granted to respondent No.3, wherein the counter signature was obtained in breach of the reciprocal agreement executed between the State of Chhattisgarh and the State of Odisha. He would contend that till date, his application has not been decided. 4. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage, 3 directing respondent No.2 to decide the complaint filed by the petitioner on 21.1.2019 in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 120 days, if already not decided. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi