(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai
For State/Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer
No.1 & 2
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
"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.
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
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. 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
