2026:HHC:12178 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 916 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.04.2026 Anand Moudgil …Appellant Versus State Statutory Body Regional Transport Authority & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Appellant in person. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) LPA Nos. 917 & 922 of 2025 Delinked. LPA No. 916 of 2025 2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 7773 of 2025, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. The Statutory Body, Regional Transport Authority, Shimla & Anr., decided on 22.11.2025. The learned Single Judge though had decided two other writ petitions with which we would deal with at on another date. 3. However, while dismissing the writ petitions, it was noticed that the said Court was bound by the findings of the 2 2026:HHC:12178 earlier Division Bench in CWP No. 3741 of 2020, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. The Chairman, State Transport Authority of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, the learned Single Judge did not interfere in the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), which was subject matter of challenge. 4. The perusal of the order, which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge would go on to show that the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), as such, had intimated to the petitioner that as per Clause 4(xi) of the Inter-state Transport Agreement signed between the States of Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh ‘No new route is to be granted to a private stage carriage operator in the interstate route or in the corridor route’ and therefore, the Department was unable to take decision on suo moto application filed by him for the grant of interstate carriage from ‘Shimla to Haridwar’. Though much has been raised regarding the jurisdiction and the authority of the RTO, Shimla to have given the said information to the petitioner and communicated to the same on the ground that he was a Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act and, therefore, the order was nonest as such as it was not passed by a competent authority. 5. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner had applied on 28.05.2024 to the Regional Transport Authority 3 2026:HHC:12178 Shimla for the grant of stage carriage permit from Shimla to Haridwar (Annexure P-2). 6. In the earlier round of litigation in CWP No. 6578 of 2024, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. State Transport Authority & Anr., similar issue had also arisen whereby he had contended that the Secretary, State Transport Authority had no competence and jurisdiction to decide these applications for grant of stage carriage permit and, therefore, the directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said civil writ petition filed by the present appellant, whereby the order dated 27.06.2024 issued by the Secretary had been quashed. The State Transport Authority had been directed to consider the application for grant of stage carriage permit within four weeks from the date of the order. The relevant portion reads as under:- “8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Annexure P-5, dated 27.06.2024 is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No. 1-State Transport Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, afresh within four weeks’ from the date of this order.” 7. Apparently, the State Transport Authority vide order dated 27.12.2024, keeping in view the said directions, considered the case of the present appellant for the grant of stage carriage permit on two routes from ‘Manali to Haridwar’ 4 2026:HHC:12178 and ‘Shimla to Tanakpur’ and it is not disputed that Tanakpur is beyond Haridwar and a reference was accordingly made by the State Transport Authority to the effect that the objections/suggestions had been invited by the State Government regarding the Interstate Agreement between the States of Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh, way back on 15.06.2016 and the same had been finalised on 19.06.2017, which provided that ‘ No new route is to be granted to a private stage carriage operator in the interstate route or in the corridor route’. 8. The said decision had been appended by the State in its reply alongwith the writ petition which was filed in July, 2025. 9. We have perused the writ record also. Neither the replication was filed to the reply nor the writ petition was amended to challenge the order passed though the matter was pending before the learned Single Judge for a period of good four months. 10. In such circumstances, the argument, which is being raised that initial order dated 23.08.2024 as such was passed by government authority would not hold much water as in subsequent directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the State Transport Authority had decided the matter having taken a decision as such. Having been also associated with the decision and being aware of the order dated 27.12.2024 (Annexure R-7), 5 2026:HHC:12178 the appellant-petitioner filed the writ petition in March, 2025 and had chosen not to challenge the same and only on the basis of an earlier order sought to challenge order dated 23.08.2024 on the technicality as such. 11. We are of the considered opinion that once the competent authority at the instance of the petitioner itself has passed the order dated 27.12.2024 and the said order was never subject matter of consideration, no effective relief could be granted in the writ petition. As such it is also to be noticed that the State has also placed on record the Agreement inter se with the State of Uttrakhand, which had been notified on 19.06.2017 (Annexure R-1), while exercising the power under sub Section 6 of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus, had ratified the mutual agreement which was executed way back on 22.03.2017 between the two States. The said agreement was also never subject matter of challenge. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that for reasons different than that the learned Single Judge has recorded, that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in the absence of the challenge having been raised to the order passed by the competent authority and also to the agreement entered into between the States of Uttrakahand and Himachal Pradesh. 6 2026:HHC:12178 13. It was after dictating the order in open Court in the post lunch sessions that the appellant thereafter brought to our notice that the order dated 27.12.2024 was subject matter of a separate Writ Petition No. 11866 of 2025, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. State Transport Authority H.P., which was decided on 24.07.2025, whereby the appellant was directed to avail the statutory remedy . The said order reads as under:- “Taking into consideration the fact that there is a statutory remedy available with the petitioner, this petition, as prayed for, is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the petitioner approaching the appropriate Authority within a period of one week from today, the Authority shall make an endeavor to decide the petition/appeal of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 15.09.2025.” 14. The appellant has further informed us that the Appellate Authority had also dismissed his appeal on 26.12.2025. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner has the remedy to challenge the said appellate order in accordance with law. Therefore, we are further fortified in our reasoning that the present appeal is only an unnecessary continuation of the proceedings, especially after the subsequent order had been passed and also challenged in a separate writ petition in which he was relegated to his remedy of appeal. 15. In such circumstances, we do not find any plausible reason to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal, 7 2026:HHC:12178 accordingly, the same is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. We constrain ourselves from imposing costs on the appellant as he is guilty of concealing facts and also instituting multiple petitions on the same cause of action. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) 16th April, 2026 (sanjeev) Judge