Mandamus to expeditiously decide time-bound applications for vehicle permits and fitness certificates.

The petitioner purchased a Tata heavy vehicle (Truck No. GJ-08-AW-3494) originally registered in Rajasthan under No. RJ-46-GA-3720

After obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Rajasthan Transport Department on 21.08.2023, the vehicle was re-registered in the petitioner’s name in Gujarat

The petitioner, who is servicing a monthly loan of Rs. 58,800/- for the vehicle, applied to the respondent authorities on 24.02.2026 for the issuance of a State permit, National permit, and a fitness certificate to commence his transportation business

Despite the application, the authorities failed to communicate any decision or pass a written order. Consequently, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to decide his pending application

1. Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to decide a pending application for vehicle permits and fitness certificates within a reasonable timeframe under the Motor Vehicles Act

2. Whether the court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the authorities to process the petitioner's application

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's power to issue directions for the enforcement of legal rights

Regulatory framework of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, which govern the issuance of National/State permits and fitness certificates for commercial vehicles

The governing principle applied is the administrative law requirement that statutory authorities must decide representations and applications made by citizens in a time-bound and transparent manner

The Court observed that the petitioner’s application for permits and a fitness certificate had been pending before the respondent authorities since February 2026 without any decision

While the petitioner asserted full compliance with re-registration and financial obligations, the respondent's counsel (Assistant Government Pleader) conceded that the application was indeed pending and did not object to a time-bound direction for its disposal

The Court noted the financial burden on the petitioner (monthly EMI payments) and determined that the inaction of the respondent authorities necessitated judicial intervention

The Court clarified that it was not adjudicating the merits of the petitioner's eligibility for the permits, but rather addressing the procedural delay in administrative decision-making

The authorities were ordered to pass a decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the court’s order. The Court discharged the Rule and made no order as to costs, while granting direct service of the order to the respondents