1 2026:CGHC:17680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1150 of 2021 Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Matabux Singh Aged About 45 Years Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Imlipara, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Transport Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, 27 Sector, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rajkishore Singh Bus Operator, R/o Near Bus Stand Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 4 - Rajanaresh Gupta Bus Operator, R/o Near Bus Stand Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 5 - Amit Singh Ahuja Bus Operator, R/o Near Bus Stand Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.3 & 4 : Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 17.04.2026 1. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.7.2020 (Ann. P/4). passed by respondent no.2. YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.04.17 18:02:45 +0530 2 B. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deem, fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh (respondent No.2) is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law, as the application of the petitioner for grant of counter signature of regular stage carriage permit has been rejected without proper consideration of the relevant factual and legal aspects. It is contended that the respondent authority has failed to appreciate the statutory provisions governing grant of counter signature and has acted in a mechanical manner, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. He further submits that the Regional Transport Authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction in effectively reviewing its own earlier order dated 22.04.2019, whereby the permit had already been granted in favour of the petitioner. It is argued that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no power vested with the authority to review its own order, and such action is contrary to settled law. It is also submitted that in view of the notification dated 24.12.2019, whereby a unified Regional Transport Authority has been constituted for the entire State of Chhattisgarh, the respondent authority could not have revisited or nullified its earlier decision under the guise of reconsideration. The impugned action amounts to setting aside its own order without any authority of law and is 3 thus liable to be quashed. Hence, the impugned order dated 01.07.2020 deserves to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 jointly submit that the stage carriage permit in question, bearing No. SCP 732/8/2019, which was originally granted in favour of the petitioner on 22.04.2019 for the route Bilaspur to Sariya via Pamgarh, Gidhori and Sarangarh with one return trip daily, has already expired on 30.04.2024 by efflux of time. It is contended that in view of such expiry, the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely challenge to the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, has lost its practical significance, as no subsisting right survives in favour of the petitioner under the said permit. They would further submit that even otherwise, if the petitioner intends to continue the operation on the said route, the appropriate course available to him under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to submit a fresh application for grant or renewal of permit before the competent authority. It is submitted that such application, if filed, shall be considered independently by the concerned authority in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier rejection order dated 01.07.2020, and after affording due opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, including respondents No. 3 and 4. 4 4. It is thus jointly contended that in view of the subsequent development, namely expiry of the permit on 30.04.2024, the present writ petition has become infructuous and does not warrant adjudication on merits. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the permit in question is no longer in force, this writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, it is observed that if the petitioner files an appropriate application for grant or renewal of permit before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, and without being influenced by the earlier proceedings. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh