1 CGHC010296142023 2026:CGHC:34448 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4034 of 2023 1 - M/s Royal Travels Through Its Partner Sayed Anwar Ali, S/o Syed Ahmed Ali, Aged About 40 Years, Bus Operator, R/o Royal Travels, Shop No. 03, Pagariya Complex, New Bus Stand, Pandri Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Rapur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Transport Authority, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Radhakrishna Gupta, S/o Late Shri Shanker Dayal Gupta, Aged About 55 Years R/o Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Smt. Seema Pathak, W/o Shri Akhilesh Pathak, Aged About 51 Years R/o Near Gandhi Chowk, Old High Court Road, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate. For State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, P.L. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU Date: 2026.08.06 18:47:55 +0530 2 “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction, quashing/set-aside the order dated 29.08.2023 in revision no. R22/2023 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur and consequently the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 be restored being well founded based upon sound principles of law. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the STAT till final disposal of the case. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost and expenses of this petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of the interim order dated 12.09.2023 passed by this Court, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) was stayed, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue operating his vehicle. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has completed the entire tenure of the permit. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit, which, according to the petitioner, has already been granted by the competent authority. It is submitted that both the petitioner and the private respondent are presently operating their respective vehicles in accordance with law. In such circumstances, it is contended that the challenge to the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 has become redundant by efflux of time. It is further submitted that if the private respondents are aggrieved by the renewal of the petitioner's permit, it shall be open to them to assail the said renewal independently in accordance with law. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 cannot be sustained in law. The competent Regional Transport Authority had granted the petitioner a permit to operate on the inter-State route from Raipur (Chhattisgarh) to Bhawnathpur (Jharkhand). The record further reveals that the private respondent is operating its vehicle on an intra-State route, namely, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) to Balco (Chhattisgarh). Thus, the routes being operated by the petitioner and the private respondent are distinct in nature and fall in different operational categories. In such circumstances, the objection raised by the private respondent against the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was wholly misconceived and ought not to have been accepted by the authority concerned. The authority, while passing the impugned order, failed to take into consideration the material distinction between an inter-State permit and an intra-State permit and consequently arrived at an erroneous conclusion. 5. Even otherwise also, by virtue of the interim order dated 12.09.2023 passed by this Court, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) was stayed, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue operating his vehicle. 4 It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner has completed the entire tenure of the permit. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit, which, according to the petitioner, has already been granted by the competent authority. It is submitted that both the petitioner and the private respondent are presently operating their respective vehicles in accordance with law. In such circumstances, it is contended that the challenge to the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 has become redundant by efflux of time. It is further submitted that if the private respondents are aggrieved by the renewal of the petitioner's permit, it shall be open to them to assail the said renewal independently in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.08.2023 deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 7. The writ petition stands allowed. 8. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge U.K. Raju