Mandamus for Time-Bound Disposal of Transport Permit Applications Under Rule 74(4) of MV Rules.

The petitioner, a bus operator, submitted multiple applications dated 02.03.2026 to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Jagdalpur, seeking Permanent Stage Carriage Permits for various routes including Nagarnar to Kawardha, Durg to Bailadila, Durg to Bijapur, and Durg to Konta.

Despite the lapse of the statutory period and repeated reminders, the applications remained pending without a decision.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the RTA to decide the applications, alleging that the delay was arbitrary and adversely affected their right to livelihood and business.

1. Whether the respondent authority is legally obligated to decide the applications for Stage Carriage Permits within the timeframe prescribed under the relevant Motor Vehicle Rules.

2. Whether the continued pendency of the petitioner's applications beyond the prescribed period warrants judicial intervention and a time-bound direction for disposal.

The court primarily applied Rule 74(4) of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, which mandates that the competent authority must consider and decide applications for Stage Carriage Permits within a period of 60 days.

The court also implicitly relied on the principle of administrative law that statutory authorities must exercise their powers and perform their duties within a reasonable time, especially when a specific timeframe is provided by law.

The Court noted the admitted factual position that the petitioner’s applications had been pending since 02.03.2026.

Upon examining the statutory framework, the Court found that Rule 74(4) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994, explicitly contemplates a decision within 60 days.

The Court observed that despite the lapse of considerable time exceeding this statutory limit, no decision had been taken by the Secretary, RTA.

While the State counsel argued there was no deliberate inaction and promised a decision in accordance with the law, the Court determined that the failure to adhere to the prescribed timeframe required a formal direction to ensure the protection of the petitioner's rights.

The Court ordered that the applications be resolved by passing a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the law, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the applications, leaving all issues open for the competent authority’s determination.