A writ petition challenging an initial order is not maintainable if a subsequent order by the competent authority on the same matter has been passed and remains unchallenged, particularly when the underlying statutory agreement is also not contested.

G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

LPA Nos. 917 & 922 of 2025

Delinked.

LPA No. 916 of 2025

2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 7773 of 2025, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. The Statutory Body, Regional Transport Authority, Shimla & Anr., decided on 22.11.2025. The learned Single Judge though had decided two other writ petitions with which we would deal with at on another date.

3. However, while dismissing the writ petitions, it was noticed that the said Court was bound by the findings of the earlier Division Bench in CWP No. 3741 of 2020, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. The Chairman, State Transport Authority of Himachal Pradesh and, therefore, the learned Single Judge did not interfere in the order dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure P-3), which was subject mattefr of challenge.

4. The perusal of the order, which was subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge would go on to show that the Regional Transporrt OfÏcer (RTO), as such, had intimated to the petitioner that as per Clause 4(xi) of the Inter-state Transport Agreement signed between the States of Uttrakhand and HimaCchal Pradesh ‘No new route is to be granted to a private stage carriage operator in the interstate route or in the cohrridor route’ and therefore, the Department was unable to take gdecision on suo moto application filed by him for the grant of interstate carriage from ‘Shimla to Haridwar’. Though much has been raised regarding the jurisdiction and the authority of the RTO, Shimla to have given the said information to the petitioner and communicated to the same on the ground that he was a Public Information OfÏcer under the Right to Information Act and, therefore, the order was nonest as such as it was not passed by a competent authority.

5. It is pertinent to notice that the petitioner had applied on 28.05.2024 to the Regional Transport Authority Shimla for the grant of stage carriage permit from Shimla to Haridwar (Annexure P-2).

6. In the earlier round of litigation in CWP No. 6578 of 2024, titled as Anand Moudgil vs. State Transport Authority & Anr., similar issue had also arisen whereby he had contended that the Secretary, State Transport Authority had no competence and jurisdiction to decide these applications for grant of stage carriage perrmit and, therefore, the directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said civil writ petition filed by the present appellant, whereby the order daCted 27.06.2024 issued by the Secretary had been quashed. The State Transport Authority had been directed to cohnsider the application for grant of stage carriage permit within gfour weeks from the date of the order. The relevant portion reads as under:-

“8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed. Annexure P-5, dated 27.06.2024 is quashed and set-aside. Respondent No. 1-State Transport Authority is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Stage Carriage Permit, afresh within four weeks’ from the date of this order.”

7. Apparently, the State Transport Authority vide order dated 27.12.2024, keeping in view the said directions, considered the case of the present appellant for the grant of stage carriage permit on two routes from ‘Manali to Haridwar’ and ‘Shimla to Tanakpur’ and it is not disputed that Tanakpur is beyond Haridwar and a reference was accordingly made by the State Transport Authority to the effect that the objections/suggestions had been invited by the State Government regarding the Interstate A