IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8796 of 2026 Decided on: 19th June, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagdish Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned acts of the respondents contained in Annexure P-3, decision taken vide item at serial N.45 with respect to alteration of the route permit of the private respondent herein contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules and P3/A route permit issued on 16.02.2024 issued prior to issuance of Annexure P3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondents herein having violated the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in CWP No.7295/12, may kindly be summoned, prosecuted and punished to up keep the majesty of law in high esteem.” 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. The case set up by the petitioner, as canvassed by his learned Senior Counsel, is that the petitioner had applied and was granted route permit by the competent authority for running the Stage Carriage Bus on route ‘Gharat (Shimla)-Jeori (Shimla)-Rampur (Shimla)-Theog (Shimla)-Shimla’ in the year 2016. The permit is stated to have been renewed and valid upto 03.02.2029. Petitioner is running bus on the route in question. In May, 2026, petitioner became aware that respondent No.5 had started running his bus on a new route, which clashed with the time table of the route assigned to the petitioner, thereby affecting his interest. Respondent No.5 had route permit ‘Bhaba Nagar (Kinnaur)-Jeori (Shimla)-Rampur (Shimla)- Theog (Shimla)-Shimla’ for his bus bearing No.HP-06B- 5151. The said route permit was in vogue since 2004 and valid upto 08.02.2029, however, the official respondents have altered the said route of respondent No.5, thereby giving him wrongful gain and in turn causing wrongful loss to the petitioner. The permit was given to respondent No.5 on 16.02.2024. This was prior to the decision of Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Shimla dated 18.09.2025. The new route permit was actually purported to have been approved in favour of respondent No.5 in the RTA meeting 3 dated 18.09.2025. The procedure followed by the RTA in conducting the meeting on 18.09.2025 and taking decisions therein was in contravention of the applicable provisions of Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The same was also contrary to the directions issued in Ajay Parihar Versus State of HP & Ors2. It has also been pleaded in the writ petition that on coming to know of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner preferred a representation in the office of respondent No.4- Regional Transport Officer, Shimla on 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner thereafter visited the office of this authority on multiple occasions, but the representation was not heeded to by the respondents. No action taken on the aforesaid representation as yet has been communicated to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Keeping in view the grievance of the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to direct respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law, keeping in view the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles 2 CWP No.7295 of 2012, decided on 18.5.2016 4 Rules, 1999, decision rendered in Ajay Parihar2 and the grounds taken in the instant writ petition. Ordered accordingly. In the process of deciding the representation, respondent No.3/competent authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the stakeholders including the petitioner and respondent No.5. Order in this regard be passed within six weeks from today. Copy of the decision arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua June 19, 2026 Judge Mukesh