IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P(C) No. 3198 of 2026 Pravat Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. D. Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. J.K. Khandayat Ray, ASC Mr. P. Behera, Panel Counsel for Transport Department. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 17.07.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dtd. 09.01.2026 passed in M.V. Misc. Case no. 02 of 2025 arising out of M.V. Revision no. 05 of 2025 passed by the learned Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Odisha should not be quashed as illegal and unsustainable; If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order quashing the impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal; And may further be pleased to grant an order of stay against the Temporary Permit in question issued to OSRTC or any other Temporary/Permanent Permit issued in place of the aforesaid Temporary Permit in the meanwhile through renewal or conversion till final disposal of the Revision case by Ld. State Transport Appellate Tribunal; And may further be pleased to grant an order that no such renewal/conversion be allowed in respect of the Temporary permit issued to OSRTC.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vociferously argued in respect of his case, assailing the impugned order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) structured on the prayer made by the Petitioner in his revision Petition, placed under Annexure-4, wherein the sole prayer of the Petitioner was in respect to the fact that the permit granted to the Opposite Party No.4 on 18.09.2025 be quashed. 4. Mr. Behera, learned Panel Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.4, on the other hand, submits that the aforesaid permit in question, which was under challenge before the STAT in the Revision, has since expired on 09.01.2026. The same has also been endorsed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party No.4, after the expiry of the said temporary permit, has been handed with a permanent permit and he is aggrieved by the said grant of the permanent permit to the Opposite Party No.4. However, the Petitioner has not made any application before the concerned STAT, challenging the aforesaid permanent permit granted to Opposite Party No.4 and very cordially he submits that he would make an application as required under law, challenging the aforesaid permanent permit granted in favour of Opposite Party No.4, as to expose his cause and grievance. 5. Mr. Behera, learned Panel Counsel, has no objection to this. Accordingly, the Petitioner, who seeks to withdraw the application, is permitted with liberty to approach the STAT with the new cause of action with regard to the grant of permanent permit. 6. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay