A writ petition becomes infructuous by efflux of time when no interim relief was granted.

The petitioner, a bus operator holding a permanent stage carriage permit for the route Baima–Manendragarh, challenged the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit to Respondent No. 3 for the route Geji–Manendragarh.

The petitioner had objected before the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), contending that the proposed time schedule of Respondent No. 3 overlapped with his existing schedule.

After the matter had been reserved for orders, Respondent No. 3 submitted an amended time schedule, which was accepted without giving the petitioner a further opportunity to object.

The RTA’s order dated 1 June 2023 was affirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in revision on 26 July 2024.

The petitioner consequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking quashing of both orders.

The State defended the STAT order as lawful and free from jurisdictional error.

Whether the acceptance of Respondent No. 3’s amended time schedule after the matter had been reserved for orders, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to object, rendered the RTA’s order illegal or procedurally invalid.

Whether the writ petition challenging the STAT order and the consequential RTA order had become infructuous by efflux of time, particularly in the absence of any interim order in favour of the petitioner.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach the competent authorities afresh regarding the time slot allotted to Respondent No. 3.

The Court applied the principle that a writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous where, due to the passage of time and intervening circumstances, the relief sought no longer survives for effective adjudication, especially when no interim protection was granted during the pendency of the proceedings.

The Court also preserved the petitioner’s right to pursue an appropriate administrative remedy before the concerned transport authorities in accordance with law concerning the disputed time slot.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

Although the petitioner alleged that the amended time schedule had been accepted without notice and thereby caused prejudice, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of that procedural challenge.

It focused on the nature of the relief sought—quashing of the STAT and RTA orders—and held that, in view of the efflux of time and the absence of any interim order protecting the petitioner, the writ petition had become infructuous.

To avoid foreclosing any surviving grievance concerning the operational time slot, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the competent authorities, which were directed to consider and decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned authorities by filing an appropriate application if he remained aggrieved by the time slot allotted to Respondent No. 3.

The authorities were directed to consider and decide such application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.