Disposed¶31

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 May 2026WPC/2317/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Stage carriage permit application dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) pending before Regional Transport Authority, Nawa Raipur; bus CG-16-A-1751, Pipariya-Korbi route; petitioner alleged inaction despite completed formalities, invoking Articles 14 and 19(1)(g); respondents had no objection to limited prayer; writ petition disposed of with direction to RTA to decide application in accordance with law/rules/regulations; no observation on merits. Single Judge bench of Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., decided 08/05/2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent No.2/Regional Transport Authority to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) in accordance with law/rules/regulations; the Court expressly did not express anything on the merits. ¶31

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

RAGHVENDRAJAT Digitallysigned byRAGHVENDRAJAT

¶3

2026:CGHC:21584

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2317 of 2026

¶7

1 - Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Late Ramkaran Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o Village - Baror, P. O. - Bagrar, Tahsil - Marwahi, District - Gourela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - Regional Transport Authority, Through Its Secretary, Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. A.G.

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

08/05/2026

¶18

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following

¶19

reliefs:-

¶20

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.2/Regional Transport Authority to decide the application dated 23.02.2026 (Annexure P/2) submitted by the petitioner for grant of stage carriage permit within a stipulated time frame, preferably within 30 days.

¶22

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court seeking issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 2 – the Regional Transport Authority, to consider and decide the pending application dated 23.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner for grant of a stage carriage permit to operate his bus bearing Registration No. CG-16-A-1751 on the route from Pipariya to Korbi; it is submitted that the petitioner has duly complied with all the requisite formalities and submitted all necessary documents along with the prescribed fee before the competent authority, however, despite completion of all procedural requirements, the respondent authorities have failed to take any decision on the petitioner’s application within a reasonable period of time; it is further submitted that such inaction and failure on the part of the respondent authorities is wholly arbitrary, unjustified, and contrary to law, and the same has adversely affected the

¶24

¶25

petitioner’s right to carry on his lawful occupation and business, thereby infringing the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not challenging any particular order but is seeking a direction from this Court to respondent No. 2, to decide the application (Annexure P-2) dated 23.2.2026 within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner seeking direction to respondent-authorities to consider the pending representation, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. His pending representation will be considered in accordance with law.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case instead of keeping this petition pending, I find it appropriate to dispose of the same at this stage directing the concerned respondent No. 2 to consider/decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/2) dated 23.2.2026 in accordance with law/rules/regulations.

¶30

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case.

¶31

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Raghu Jat

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Shahabuddin Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Chhabra Bus Service Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Srinivash Paul Vs State of Chhattisgarh