1 2025:CGHC:19873 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3381 of 2019 • Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Matabaksha Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Imlihpara Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Sachiw Pariwahan Vibhag Mantralaya Mahanandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Rajya Privahan Apealiya Adhikaran Chhattisgarh Raipur Ghadi Chowk Purana Mantralya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chetriya Pariwahan Pradikaran Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Shanawaj Khan S/o Smile Khan Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Imlihpara, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10-1 ;g fd] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls lknj izkFkZuk gS fd vkosnd ds izdj.k ls lacaf/kr leLr nLrkost cqyk;s tkus dh d`ik djsa A 10-2 ;g fd] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls lknj izkFkZuk gS fd vukosnd izkf/kdkj }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 07-09-2019 dks fujLr fd;s tkus dh egrh d`ik djsa A 10-3 ;g fd] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ls lknj izkFkZuk gS fd vukosnd izkf/kdkj dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZ ds i{k dks lquk tkdj fof/k laEkr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dh d`ik djsa A 10-4 vU; dksbZ vuqrks"k tks U;k;ky; mfpr le>s mls ;kfpdkdrkZ ds i{k esa vukosnd ds fo:) esa fn;k tkosa rFkk izdj.k ds leLr [kpZ dh Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 jkf'k izkf/kdkj ls fnykbZ tkos rFkk ;kfpdk ds leFkZu esa i`Fkd ls 'kiFk Ik= izLrqr gS A” 2. Mr. Anshul R. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that initially, an application for grant of permit was moved by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority (for short 'RTA') and that was rejected vide order dated 10.07.2019. He would further submit that respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and the matter was remitted back to the RTA vide order dated 07.09.2019 to decide it afresh. He would also submit that the application moved by the petitioner has been rejected by the RTA thus the petition has become infructuous. 3. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2019 and therefore, there was no occasion for the RTA to decide the application. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the application for grant of permit moved by respondent No. 4 has already been rejected by the RTA, this petition has become academic and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive his prayer, if the cause of action still survives. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti