Authorities must decide pending countersignature applications expeditiously, with conditional liberty to ply within the State.

The petitioner operated a stage carriage vehicle on the inter-State route from Nimbaheda to Arnod, consisting of two single trips daily, under Permit No. 4620/96. He submitted an application, along with the requisite fee and documents, to the competent authority seeking countersignature of the permit.

The Transport Authority, Rajasthan, also forwarded a recommendation for countersignature to the State Transport Authority, Gwalior. Since no decision was taken on the pending application, the petitioner claimed that his vehicle remained idle and that he suffered financial loss.

The petitioner therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and sought directions for consideration of his application, as well as a direction restraining the authorities from stopping his vehicle on the ground that the permit had not been countersigned.

Whether the competent authority should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application for countersignature of the inter-State permit within a stipulated period?

Whether, pending such decision, the petitioner should be permitted to ply the vehicle within the State, subject to statutory restrictions and in accordance with law?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate direction for consideration of a pending statutory application where the grievance was limited to non-decision by the competent authority.

The Court relied on its earlier order dated 27 July 2026 in W.P. No. 28296 of 2026, which directed the competent authority to consider and decide a similar application in accordance with law, keeping in view the order dated 18 December 2023 in W.P. No. 30969 of 2023, preferably within two weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Court further applied the principle that, if the application is not decided within the prescribed period, the applicant may ply the vehicle within the State subject to statutory restrictions and applicable law until the application is decided.

The Court found that the petitioner’s grievance was narrow: his application for countersignature had remained undecided despite submission of the requisite documents and recommendation by the Rajasthan Transport Authority.

Since the State raised no objection to a direction for consideration of the application, and the facts were substantially similar to those in W.P. No. 28296 of 2026, the Court applied the directions issued in that case.

The Court did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to countersignature; instead, it required the competent authority to make a decision in accordance with law, while granting limited interim liberty to ply the vehicle if the authority failed to decide the application within the stipulated period.

If the authority failed to decide the application within that period, the petitioner was granted liberty to ply the vehicle within the State, subject to statutory restrictions and applicable law, until the application was decided.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.