Disposed

Smt Pushpa Jaiswal v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2016WPT/51/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner applied for a no dues certificate to replace an old bus permit. The petitioner claimed no decision was made on the application. The Court directed the authorities to decide the application within 45 days, noting no prejudice to parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the concerned authority to decide the application for no dues certificate within 45 days.

Smt Pushpa Jaiswal Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

WPT No. 51 of 2016

¶3

Smt Pushpa Jaiswal W/o Shri J.P. Jaiswal, Aged About 66 Years R/o 1, Gulmohur Residency, Nagrath Chowk Road, North Civil Lines, Jabalpur ( Madhya Pradesh) 482001

¶4

---- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Transport Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶7

The Regional Transport Authority/Taxation Authority, Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

---- Respondents

¶9

11/04/2016 Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy.G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted the permit for running vehicle in between route Jabalpur to Raipur and it was with respect to the bus bearing No.MP-20/PA/0546. It is submitted that all the tax have been paid till date and since vehicle has become old, petitioner wanted to replace the vehicle with the new one and therefore has applied for no dues certificate to the concerned authority by application Annexure P-7. It is contended that the same is not being decided, therefore petitioner is not able to replace the new vehicle instead of old one.
Annexure P-7 is the application submitted to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur wherein no dues certificate have been asked. Limited prayer has been made that a direction may be given to decide the application Annexure P-7 as the authorities are not deciding the said application. Considering the limited prayer made, it appears that no prejudice would be caused to the either parties if

11/04/2016 Shri Anand Dadariya, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gary Mukhopadhyay, Dy.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
was granted the permit for running vehicle in between
route Jabalpur to Raipur and it was with respect to the bus
bearing No.MP-20/PA/0546. It is submitted that all the tax
have been paid till date and since vehicle has become old,
petitioner wanted to replace the vehicle with the new one
and therefore has applied for no dues certificate to the
concerned authority by application Annexure P-7. It is
contended that the same is not being decided, therefore
petitioner is not able to replace the new vehicle instead of
old one.

Annexure P-7 is the application submitted to the Regional
Transport Authority, Raipur wherein no dues certificate
have been asked. Limited prayer has been made that a
direction may be given to decide the application Annexure
P-7 as the authorities are not deciding the said application.
Considering the limited prayer made, it appears that no
prejudice would be caused to the either parties if

¶10

	application Annexure P-7 is decided on its own merit. It is therefore directed that concerned authority shall decide the application Annexure P-7 within further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of such order. It is made clear that court has not expressed any opinion on merits of this case.
	With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.
	Sd/-
	(Goutam Bhaduri)
gouri	JUDGE

Smt Pushpa Jaiswal v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpa Jaiswal v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Kumar Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ranjit Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Kaushik Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Madhuri Singh and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Shyamlal Hirwani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Santram Chauhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh