SATYA NARAYAN SAHU AND ORS v. STATE HOME DEPARTMENT ORS
CW/11827/2011 · 2025-02-25
Sudesh Bansal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9195 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 9195 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:8587] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11827/2011
1. Satya Narayan Sahu S/o Shri Sri Lal Sahu R/o Sultanpur District Kota (Rajasthan) president of Bus Malik Sangh Jila Kota.
2. Prabhu Lal S/o Shri Seeru Mal Resident of 36 Ashok Colony, Gumanpura, Kota, Rajasthan Treasurer Bus Malik Sangh, Jila Kota and permit Holder Kota to Sangod and Kota to Kanwas routes.
3. Bus Malik Sangh, Jila Kota Kota Rajasthan, Jai Mata Di Complex, Sri Nath Travels Near Gurudwara Chawani, Kota (Raj.) through President Satya Narain Sahu. ----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jan Path, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur.
3. The Principal Secretary (Transport), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur.
4. The Transport Commissioner cum-Secretary Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur(Rajasthan)
5. Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota.
6. District Collector, Kota
7. Member Regional Transport Authority Kota Region Parivahan Marg, Sehkar Marg, Jaipur (H.Q.)
8. Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Kota City, Kota.
9. Superintendent of Police (Traffic) Kota Rural, Kota
10. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Sangod District Kota.
11. The Regional Transport officer, Kota.
12. The District Transport Officer Kota.
13. The District Transport Officer Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Sharma for Mr. Swaraj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG
[2025:RJ-JP:8587] (2 of 2) [CW-11827/2011] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/02/2025
1. Counsel for petitioners, on instructions of petitioners, states that with passage of time, prayer made in the writ petition has rendered infructuous, therefore, petitioners do not want to press this petition.
2. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed as not press.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/154