1 2026:CGHC:21584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2317 of 2026 1 - Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Ramkaran Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Baror, P. O. - Bagrar, Tahsil - Marwahi, District - Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Regional Transport Authority, Through Its Secretary, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/05/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.2/Regional Transport Authority to decide the application dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) submitted by the petitioner for grant of stage carriage permit within a stipulated time frame, preferably within 30 days. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court seeking issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 2 – the Regional Transport Authority, to consider and decide the pending application dated 23.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner for grant of a stage carriage permit to operate his bus bearing Registration No. CG-16-A-1751 on the route from Pipariya to Korbi; it is submitted that the petitioner has duly complied with all the requisite formalities and submitted all necessary documents along with the prescribed fee before the competent authority, however, despite completion of all procedural requirements, the respondent authorities have failed to take any decision on the petitioner’s application within a reasonable period of time; it is further submitted that such inaction and failure on the part of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to law, and the same has adversely affected the 3 petitioner’s right to carry on his lawful occupation and business, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but is seeking a direction from this Court to respondent No. 2, to decide the application (Annexure P-2) dated 23.2.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court. 4. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider the pending representation, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. His pending representation will be considered in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the concerned respondent No. 2 to consider/decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/2) dated 23.2.2026 in accordance with law/rules/regulations. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat