Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26272 (CHH)

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH v. CHHABDA BUS SERVICE

WPC/3272/2022 · 2026-07-12

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010243472022 2026:CGHC:29315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3272 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh...........(Respondent No.1) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhabda Bus Service Proprietor Mahendra Singh Chabda, Ringh Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.............(Applicant) 2 - Radhakrishna Gupta, Durga Motor Service, New Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh...........(Respondent No.2) 3 - Dinesh Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Bachhlal Gupta R/o Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh..............(Respondent No.3) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4164 of 2022 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.07.14 13:19:36 +0530 2 1 - Chhabda Bus Service Through Partner Mahendra Singh Chhabda, S/o Late S. Santosh Singh Chhabda, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur,, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner/ Respondent-State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA For Respondent(s)/ Petitioner -Chhabda Bus Service : None SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/07/2026 WPC No. 3272 of 2022 1. Learned counsel for the State-petitioners submits that by efflux of time, this petition has become infructuous. 2. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. WPC No. 4164 of 2022 3 1. None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called out. 2. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter further. 3. In view of the above, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay