Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Manish Travels vs State Of Chhattisgarh 12 Wpc/1023/2018 ... on 12 April, 2018

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                         1

                                                                            NAFR

            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                              WPC No. 1022 of 2018

      Manish Travels, through Proprietor Manish Jain, S/o Bhagchand Jain, aged
      about 39 years, R/o Minimata Chowk, Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

                                                                     ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

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

   2. Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

   3. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur,
      Chhattisgarh.

                                                                 ---- Respondents

And WPC No. 1023 of 2018 Manish Travels, through Proprietor Manish Jain, S/o Bhagchand Jain, aged about 39 years, R/o Minimata Chowk, Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

---- Petitioner Versus

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

2. Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 2 12/04/2018

1. Limited grievance of the petitioner is that the application for change of timing and extension of route in regular permit is pending since 08.05.2017 and direction may be issued to the respondent to decide the same expeditiously.

2. State counsel has no objection if any such direction is issued to the respondent.

3. The present petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondent to decide the pending application of the petitioner dated 08.05.2017 if not already decided, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

4. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case and it would be for the competent authority to act strictly in accordance with law.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka