Allowed¶23

Manish Travels v. State Transport Authority

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2026MCC/996/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration/revival of writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution; WPC No. 151 of 2019; MCC No. 996 of 2025; Manish Travels (Manish Jain) v. State Transport Authority and M/s Kanker Roadway; conditional restoration with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to Library Fund, High Court Bar Association, Bilaspur; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; order dated 2.2.2026; dismissal order dated 22.3.2024.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of WPC No. 151 of 2019 to its original number, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- to the Library Fund, High Court Bar Association, Bilaspur. ¶23

Manish Travels Vs State Transport Authority — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.02 14:12:54 +0530

2026:CGHC:5673

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCC No. 996 of 2025

¶7

Manish Travels Through Proprietor Manish Jain, Son Of Bhagchand Jain, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Minimata Chowk, Pulgaon, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Transport Authority Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

M/s Kanker Roadway Civil Lines Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Non-applicant

¶13

For Applicant	: Mr. Shashi Kushwaha, Adv. on behalf of Mr. AjayShrivastava, Adv.
For Non-applicant No. 1	: For Anuradha Jain, Dy. G.A.
For Non-applicant No. 2	: None

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

2.2.2026

¶17

1) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that WPC No. 151 of

¶18

2019 was dismissed by this Court for want of prosecution vide order dated 22.3.2024. He further submits that applicant is very much interested in pursuing the matter and has a good case on

¶19

¶20

merit. He prays to allow the instant application.

¶21

2) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State/ non-applicant opposes.

¶22

3) Heard.

¶23

4) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Kushwaha, instant application is allowed and WPC No. 151 of 2019 is hereby restored to its original number, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- payable to Library Fund, High Court Bar Association, Bilaspur.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

¶26

A j i n k y a

Manish Travels v. State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Travels v. State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Bai (Died and deleted) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Surojiya Vs Deepak Sahu

Branch Manager Vs Gahru Singh Baiga

Narayan Bhagat Vs Rajesh Kumar Mishra

Akshay Das Vs Babban Rai S/o Mohar Rai

Laxmin Bai Chouhan Vs Satyanarayan Gond