Disposed

Himanshu Chaudhary S/O Shri Harsh Chaudhary v. State Transport Authority

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2024CW/7514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in deciding permit application by transport authorities. Court directed authorities to decide the application within one month if complete, relying on Rule 5.6 Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition disposed of directing concerned authority to decide pending application within one month if complete from receipt of certified copy.

Himanshu Chaudhary S/O Shri Harsh Chaudhary Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:33902]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7514/2023

¶4

Himanshu Chaudhary S/o Shri Harsh Chaudhary, Aged About 30 Years, R/o B-139, Janta Colony, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Transport Authority, Through Secretary, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur, Through Secretary.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Naruka

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

08/08/2024

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased a Omni prescribed model and applied for grant of permit to ply the Bus over route Alwar to Jaipur via Shahpura (RPTS). Learned counsel further submits that the said application was presented on 28.04.2023, but till today, same has not been considered.

¶15

Learned counsel relied upon the provision of Rule 5.6 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules and submits that if any application is submitted and same is found complete by the State Transport Authority/Regional Transport Authority, the same shall be disposed of within the one month from the date of receipt. Learned counsel submits that already more than two months have passed after filing of the application but still no decision has been taken.

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JP:33902]

[CW-7514/2023]

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking direction to the concerned authority to decide his pending application at the earliest as also in view of provision of Rule 5.6, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the concerned authority to decide the application filed by the petitioner, if same is found complete, within the period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶20

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶21

ANAND TANWAR /407

Himanshu Chaudhary S/O Shri Harsh Chaudhary v. State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Chaudhary S/O Shri Harsh Chaudhary v. State Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iifl Home Finance Limited Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Madanlal Vs Appellate Retn Tribunal Ors.

Tundaram @ Hanuman S/O Boduram Vs Add. Collector (Forth)

Rambharat Dwevedi (Deceased) through Lrs Vs Sugan Jain W/O Late Gyanchand Jain

Jagat Naredi, S/O- Shri Ashok Kumar Naredi Vs Narendra Kumar Tinkar, S/O Late Shri Radheshyam Tinkar

Shri Sachin Shah S/O Sushil Kumar Shah Vs Smt. Sushila Bhandari W/O Lt. Shri Moolchand Bhandari