SHANTANU RAI vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

1

CGHC010433832026 2026:CGHC:46668
Digitally
signed by
YOGESH
TIWARI
Date:
2026.11.05
10:31:26
+0530
YOGESH
TIWARI
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5582 of 2026
Shantanu Rai S/o- Shri Prakash Chandra Rai Aged About 24 Years R/o-
Ward No. 14, Old Bus Stand, Village- Pendra, Tahsil- Pendra, District -
Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, O/o- 3rd Floor, Comercial
Complex, Sector - 27, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Ms. Mamta Mahilange, Advocate
For Respondent : Dr. Arham Siddiqui, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
04.11.2026
1. By way of this Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to
respondent -Regional Transport Authority Chhattisgarh, to
consider and decide the petitioner’s application dated 01.09.2026
for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit on the route
Pendraroad to Manendragarh via Pendra, Kotmi, Rusga,

2
Danikundi, Marwahi, Baror, Kansbahra, Ledri and one return trip
daily, which according to the petitioner is pending for
consideration.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bus operator and is
operating his vehicle on the strength of permits granted by the
State authorities. The petitioner submitted an application dated
01.09.2026 for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit on the
aforesaid route. It is stated that despite repeated requests and
reminders, the said application has not been decided by the
competent authority. It is further submitted that as per Rule 74(4)
of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, the competent authority is
required to decide such application within 60 days, however, in the
present case, the application has remained pending beyond the
prescribed period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application has
been kept pending for an inordinate period without any
justification, which is contrary to Rule 74(4) of the Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1994. It is further submitted that similarly situated
applicants have been granted timely consideration, whereas the
petitioner has been deprived of his statutory right to consideration
of his application. It is also submitted that non-decision of the
application is arbitrary and affects the petitioner’s right to
livelihood and business.

3
4. Learned State counsel submits that the application of the
petitioner shall be considered and decided by the competent
authority strictly in accordance with law and within a reasonable
time, and that there is no deliberate inaction on the part of the
authorities.
5. From the perusal of the pleadings and submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner has
submitted an application for grant of Permanent Stage Carriage
Permit which is admittedly pending before the competent authority
since 01.09.2026. It is further noticed that Rule 74(4) of the Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1994 contemplates consideration and decision of
such application within 60 days. However, despite lapse of
considerable time, no decision has been taken on the petitioner’s
application.
6. In view of the admitted factual position and the statement made by
learned State counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the
competent authority to decide the petitioner’s application within a
time-bound period.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to
respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh to consider
and decide the petitioners’ application dated 01.09.2026 for grant
of Permanent Stage Carriage Permit on the aforesaid route,
strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and

4
speaking order, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the claim of the petitioner and all issues are left open
to be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- /-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh