1 2026:CGHC:20273 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3324 of 2022 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.) (The Petitioner No.1 Was Not A Party Before The Learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal But Has Been Impleaded As Petitioner As The Proper Course Is To Implead The State Government Through The Secretary Of The Concerned Department) 2 - Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Gappu Mahendra Travels Through Director Ajay Sing Gill, New Bus Stand Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) (Appellant) 2 - Harsh Gupta Bus Operator, Pratapganj Ward, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3 - Payal Travels G.E. Road, Durg (C.G.) 4 - Manish Travels G.E. Road, Durg (C.G.) 5 - Shailesh Kumar Sinha Bus Operator, Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 For Petitioners :- Mr. S.S. Choubey, Advocate For Respondents :- Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 30.04.2026 1. Learned State counsel submits that the State has challenged the order passed by the STAT, whereby the Tribunal has directed the State authorities to issue permit in favour of the respondent within a period of 30 days. It is submitted that in pursuance of the said direction, the present petition has been filed. Learned State counsel further submits that, as per his instructions, till date the permit has not been granted to the respondent. 2. Upon query, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that he has not received any instructions in this regard. 3. Considering the aforesaid submissions, it appears that due to efflux of time, the present petition has become infructuous, as neither respondent No.1 has approached the authorities for grant of permit nor has any permit been issued in his favour till date. 4. In such circumstances, the order passed by the STAT has lost its efficacy and has become redundant. 3 5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of as having become infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the State to file a fresh petition, if any exigency arises in future. 6. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha