← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1343/2015disposed off

Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-08-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1343 of 2015 Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma S/o Shri Puniram Verma Aged About 42 years R/o Village Patrapali, Post Dokda, Tahsil Kansabel, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Regional Transport Authority Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner - Shri Santosh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State - Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Order On Board 04/08/2015 Heard.

1.

Grievance of the petitioner is that he has moved an application before Respondent No.2/ Regional Transport Authority on 21.10.2014 for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route Matipahad to Patthalgaon via Saraitola, Kotba, Bagbahar, Ludeg and back two return trip daily but till date, his application has not been decided.

2.

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 Respondent No.2 for deciding the pending application of

the petitioner expeditiously.

3.

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 with all the pending applications for the concerned route in accordance with law on its own merits as expeditiously as possible. 4.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. The respondent No.2 is directed to decide the pending application of the petitioner and all other applications pending before it for the concerned route within reasonable time.

5.

It is made clear that this Court has observed nothing on merits and it would be for respondent No.2 to act strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J U D G E Rekha