Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41766 (CHH)

SUMIT MINJ v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPC/4643/2025 · 2025-08-31

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 3 2025:CGHC:44192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4643 of 2025 Sumit Minj S/o Shri Robert Nicholas Minj Aged About 37 Years R/o Village- Khajanchi Toli, Jashpur Tahasil And Distt.- Jashpur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2 - The State Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.01 18:59:23 +0530 2 / 3 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the application of petitioner for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit, in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1994. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner, may also be granted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for grant of permanent Stage Carriage Permit on the route from Ranchi to Kusumi Via Sisai, Gumla, Chainpur, Dumri, Jairagi, Maduabad and one trip back of his Bus vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 14 G 0240 after depositing Rs.2,500/- fees before the respondent authorities and requisite fee has also been paid accordingly. He submits that the application of the petitioner has not been decided in accordance with law despite of the fact that it should have been decided within a period of 60 days in lie of Rule 74(4) of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rule, 1994. Therefore, he submits that the respondents may be directed to decide the application within a reasonable period of time. 3. Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 4. It is expected that respondent no. 2 shall take decision on the application made by the petitioner within a period of 60 days from 3 / 3 the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Vasant