1 CGHC010156742023 2026:CGHC:35663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2214 of 2023 Abdul Haleem Khan Prop. Baba Motors S/o Shri Abdul Hakeem Khan Aged About 38 Years R/o Masjid Gali, Kududand, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantalaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Deputy Secretary Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Transport Commissioner Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Regional Transport Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For the Petitioner :Ms. Upasana Sewte, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the State : : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. GA. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 12.08.2026 2 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs: 10. RELIEFS SOUGHT: i. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 21/03/2023 (Annexure-P/1). ii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that by way of instant writ petition, petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 issued by respondent No.2, whereby auto dealers engaged in the business of sale and purchase of used vehicles have been directed to furnish a bank guarantee as a condition for registration of their business as auto dealers. The impugned order dated 21.03.2023 has been issued arbitrarily, without lawful authority and in contravention of the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles (Twenty-Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2022. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking above reliefs/prayer. 3. Learned State Counsel, referring to its return, submits that the answering respondent is not pressing over the impugned order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure P-1), as such, present writ petition has become infructuous. Relevant para of return read as under: “4. That During pendency of the present petition, the Deputy Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, 3 Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (CG) in exercise of the powers conferred by section 65 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and in pursuance of notification No.G.S.R. 901(A) dated 22 December 2022, Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, had published the draft amendment in the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 as required by sub-section (1) of section 212 of the said Act for the information of all persons like to be affected thereby and notice is hereby given that the said draft shall be taken into consideration on the expiry of 30 days from the date of publication of the notice in the official Gazette. Any objection or suggestions regarding the said draft receipt from any person, before the specified period, in Office hours in the Office of the Secretary, Department of Transport, Email-ps-transport@cg.gov.in, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur shall be considered by the Government. 5. It is most respectfully submitted that the most respectfully answering respondents submits that they will not press upon the impugned order dated 21/03/2023 (Annexure-P-1) and therefore to that extent the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed having become infructuous. 6. It is most respectfully submitted that the amendment as proposed, if is notified after considering all the objections as made against it, will be given effect to from the date as notified in the notification. The above said exercise has been undertaken to confirm with the powers as conferred under section 65 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 4 4. Considering the above aspects of the matter, particularly submission of the State Counsel that answering respondent is not pressing over the impugned order, present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge J.