1 CGHC010200442023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2865 of 2023 Lakhpati Singh S/o Shri Mudrika Singh Aged About 50 Years Bus Operator, R/o Ring Road, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Transport Authority Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Rashida Khatun W/o Mohd. Jahid Khan Aged About 44 Years Occupation Bus Operator, Through Its Special Power Of Attorney Mohd. Jahid Khan S/o Shri Ayyub Khan, Aged About 53 Years R/o House No. 34/243, Agrasen Ward, New Basti Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B.L. Dembra, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 2 30.09 .2026 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or direction, quashing/set-aside the order dated 24.05.2023 in revision no. R08/2021 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raipur and consequently the order dated 13.01.2021 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 24.05.2023 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 03.07.2023 passed by this Court, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 were stayed, thereby enabling the petitioner to continue operating his vehicle. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner completed the entire tenure of the permit. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for renewal of the permit, which, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, has already been granted by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner as well as the private respondent are presently operating their respective vehicles in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid subsequent developments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 3 the challenge to the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 has become infructuous by efflux of time. It is further submitted that, in the event 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. Learned counsel for the State has no objection to the submissions made by learned 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 24.05.2023 cannot be sustained in law. The competent Regional Transport Authority had granted the petitioner a permit to operate on the inter-State route from Ambikapur (C.G.) to Gaya/Bodhgaya (Bihar) . The record further reveals that the private respondent is operating its vehicle on an intra-State route, namely, Ambikapur (C.G.) to Patna (Bihar). 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 03.07.2023 passed by this Court, the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 24.05.2023 (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 4 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 24.05.2023 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 24.05.2023 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 Saurabh