SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Narendra Bain – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport – Respondent
WPC No. 2875 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Mishra
For the Respondents: Mrs. Upasana Mehta

Timeliness in processing applications for permits under the Motor Vehicle Act is mandated by regulations.

Headnote:The petitioner claimed relief for consideration of an application for a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit under the Motor Vehicle Act, asserting non-compliance with timelines as per Rule 74(4) of the C.G. Motor Vehicles Rule, 1994. The State did not oppose the petitioner's request. The court expected the Regional Transport Authority to decide on the application within 60 days. Thus, the petition was disposed of with this direction.

Table of Content
1. claim for a permanent stage carriage permit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. state does not oppose the application. (Para 3)
3. decision to be made within 60 days. (Para 4)
4. petition disposed of. (Para 5)

10.1 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to case of petitioner.

the respondents to consider and decide the application of petitioner for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit, in accordance with provisions of Motor Vehicle Act .

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in favour of petitioner, may also be granted.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application for grant of permanent Stage Carriage Permit on the rout Raigarh to Kasabel via Gharghoda, Dharmajaigarh, Pathalgaon vehicle bearing Registration No. CG 13 BC 9882 before the respondent authorities and requisite fee has also been paid accordingly. He submits that the application of the petitioner has not been decided in accordance with law despite of the fact that it should have been decided within a period of 60 days in lie of Rule 74(4) of C.G. Motor Vehicles Rule, 1994. Therefore, he submits that the respondents may be directed to decide the application within a reasonable period of time.

3.

Learned counsel for the State has not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

4.

It is expected that respondent no. 2 shall take decision on the application made by the petitioner (Annexure P/1) within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top