1 2025:CGHC:55206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3009 of 2020 1 - Metro Travels Services Through Its Proprietor Sayyad Anwar Ali Son Of Sayyad Ahmad Ali , Aged About 43 Years, C/o Royal Travels , Shop No. 03, Pagaria Complex , New Bus Stand , Pandri , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari and Mr. Ashutosh Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Gupta, Additional AG Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 12/11/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a transport company who is engaged in plying the buses in the State of Chhattisgarh from various destination to various destination. Vide Annexure P-5 the petitioner made an application to the respondent No. 2 to grant of permit from Raipur to Sarangarh via Kharora, Palari, Baloda- Bazar, three single trips in respect to his vehicle bearing registration No. 2 CG 04 MP 1533 Model 2018 Make-TATA / Ashok Leyland sitting capacity 35 + 1 + Deluxe 2 by 2 Push Back. The said application for grant of permit of the above stated root was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure P-1). Challenging the same, this writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the rejection of the application for grant of permit of the petitioner was only on the ground that there was clash with the timing of other bus operators. He submits that after a lapse of five years, this petition may be disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application for grant of permit to respondents who may be directed to decide the same in accordance with law without being influence by the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 (Annexure P-1). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission and submits that the impugned order was well reasoned order and therefore, no interference is warranted, however, he submits that if any fresh application for grant of permit is made by the petitioner, that shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with law. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh application for grant of permit to the respondents within a period of 45 days in accordance with law from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such application being made, it is expected that the concerned respondents shall take decision on the application within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt in accordance with law. 5. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan