← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1105/2015dismissed

Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR.

2015-07-01Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1105 of 2015 Dinesh Kumar Gupta S/O Shri Bachcha Lal Gupta Aged About 40 years R/O Kharsiya Road, Ambikapur Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2. State Transport Authority, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioners.

:

Shri Santosh Gupta, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 & 2:

Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Order On Board 01/07/2015 Heard.

2.

Grievance of the petitioner is that he has moved an application before the respondents on 25-03-2015 for grant of inter state permit on the route Bokaro to Ambikapur via Ramgarh, Ranchi and back, one single trip daily but till date his application has not been decided.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served if at this stage the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to pursue his pending application. He, however, submits that direction may be issued to the respondent for deciding the pending application of the petitioner expeditiously.

4.

State counsel has no objection to the proposition as put forth by the petitioner. He, however, submits that the application of the petitioner would be considered along

-2with all the pending applications would be considered along with all the pending applications for the concerned route in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible.

5.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. The respondent is directed to decide the pending application of the petitioner and all other applications pending before it for the concerned route within reasonable time. 6.

It is made clear that this Court has observed nothing on merits and it would be for the respondent to act strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava JUDGE Tumane