1 CGHC010289882024 2026:CGHC:36680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4289 of 2024 1 - Devendra Kumar Sharma S/o B.R. Sharma, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Aughority, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Suraj Shrivastava, S/o Narendra Shrivastava, Bus Operator, R/o Badkapara, Village And Post Podibachra, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 26.07.2024 in revision no. A38/2023 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur and consequently the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 be quashed. 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. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the bus operators operating buses in accordance with the permits granted by the competent State authorities and is the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit bearing No. 037/RTA/ABR/2022 for the route from Baima to Manendragarh via Podi, Ratanpur, Khadgawa and Chirmiri, with one return trip daily. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 applied for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit for the route from Geji to Manendragarh via Podibachra, Khadwana, Chirmiri and Parasgadi, with one return trip daily. Learned counsel further submits that the application submitted by respondent No. 3 was duly published in the agenda and objections were invited, pursuant to which the petitioner raised an objection pointing out 3 that the time schedule proposed by respondent No. 3 was overlapping with the existing time schedule of the petitioner. It is further submitted that, after the matter had been reserved for orders, respondent No. 3 submitted an amended time schedule, which was subsequently accepted by the competent authority without affording the petitioner an opportunity to raise objections thereto. According to learned counsel, acceptance of the amended time schedule at such a stage was wholly impermissible and has materially prejudiced the petitioner, rendering the order passed by the authority illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. It is also submitted that the revision preferred by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 26.07.2024, and, therefore, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) is just, proper and in accordance with law. It is contended that the learned Tribunal, after duly considering the relevant facts, the material available on record and the submissions advanced by the parties, has rightly affirmed the order passed by the competent authority. Learned counsel further submits that no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error is apparent in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is, therefore, submitted 4 that the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the nature of the relief sought by the petitioner, which is primarily for quashing of the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), whereby the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Raipur, has been affirmed, and further considering the fact that no interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that, by efflux of time, the present petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authorities by filing an appropriate application, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the time slot allotted to respondent No. 3. If such an application is filed, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 7. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat