Disposed¶23

Anamika Pandey v. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jun 2026WPC/2750/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPC No. 2750 of 2026; Anamika Pandey v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur; Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; order dated 02/06/2026; Article 226 Constitution of India; mandamus for decision on pending application dated 30.03.2026 for regular stage carriage permit on Ambikapur-Sakti route (one return trip daily); Motor Vehicle Act; direction to RTA to decide within 30 days; petition disposed of; advocates: Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava (petitioner), Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. AG. (respondent); no precedent cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Regional Transport Authority to decide the petitioner's pending application for regular stage carriage permit within 30 days from receipt of copy of the order; petition and pending application(s), if any, disposed of. ¶23

Anamika Pandey Vs Regional Transport Authority… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:23524

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2750 of 2026

¶6

Anamika Pandey W/o- Shri Lalit Pandey, Aged About 38 Years R/o- Shikari Road, Bouripara, Ambikapur Distt. - Surguja, C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN

¶9

Versus

¶10

Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh At Raipur, O/o- 3rd Floor, Sector 27, New Raipur, Distt. - Raipur, C.G.

¶11

... Respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner	: Mr. Anshul Ranjan Shrivastava, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Addl. AG.

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

02/06/2026

¶16

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the followings reliefs:-

¶17

"The Hon'ble Court may issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for grant regular stage carriage permit on the Ambikapur to Sakti and one return trip daily and to grant the same in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶18

Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner."

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had moved an application before Respondent No. 1 on 30.03.2026 for grant of regular stage carriage permit on the aforesaid route, however, the application has remained pending without any decision.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State submits that the application of the petitioner shall be considered and decided as early as possible.

¶22

Be that as it may, if the petitioner had moved such application, it should have been decided one way or the other. If it is not being decided till now, the Authority is directed to decide the matter within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition stands disposed of.

¶24

Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶26

Ajay

Anamika Pandey v. Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anamika Pandey v. Regional Transport Authority 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

Anupama Singh Vs Vinay Kumar Shrivastava

Sunita Developers Vs Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulating Authority

Jairam Vs Md. Mumtaj

Ku. Anjani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gaya Ram Dubey (Petitioner in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahesh Singh Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh