1 2025:CGHC:36609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3940 of 2025 Mohd. Shahnawaz Khan S/o Mohd. Ismail Khan Aged About 46 Years Bus Operator, R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Regional Transport Authority Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ali Raza S/o Abdul Aziz Bus Operator, R/o Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. BL Dembra, Advocate. For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to decide the objection/representation dated 14/08/2024 received on 18.09.2024 within stipulated time as this Hon'ble Court 2 deems fit and thereafter appropriate action may be taken in accordance with law. 10.2 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition.” 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is bus operator and proprietor of Nawaz bus Service, having office at New Hi-Tech Bus Stand Bilaspur (C.G.). The petitioner is running his buses on the strength of permit granted by the state. It is alleged that the respondent no.3 used to furnish incorrect and false information before the respondent no.2 in order to get permit in his favour and, thereafter, he has obtained the permanent stage carriage permit to ply the vehicle for the route Sarangarh to Bilaspur. The petitioner has obtained the information from the authorities and came to know about false information furnished by respondent no.3 and, therefore, he moved representation/objection for cancellation of permit of the respondent no.3 as the vehicle which was proposed by the respondent no.3 has already been affiliated to some other permit and the same has been suppressed by him and despite above information no any action has been taken. Hence, this petition. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned respondent-authority to consider and decide the pending representation/objection of the petitioner within specified time framed. 3 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and would submits that after considering all relevant documents, concerned respondent-authority has granted permit to respondent No.3 as per relevant rules and law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of relief, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that after considering all the relevant documents, concerned respondent-authority has granted permit to respondent No.3 as per relevant rules and law, further the fact that the petitioner has moved an representation/objection and trying to cancel the permit granted to respondent no.3, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant relief as sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is hereby dismissed. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-