HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION 227 NO 4819 OF 2009
Aashutosh Tiwari
...Petitioners
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Others
...Respondents
! Shri S K Bajpai Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Shashank Thakur Panel Lawyer for the State Shri Ajay Shrivastava Advocate for the respondent No4
CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J
Dated: 07/07/2010
: Judgement
ORDER ORAL
Passed on this 7th day of July 2010
Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge
the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2009
(Annexure – P/1) passed by the State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, and the order dated 27-2-
2009 (Annexure – P/7) passed by the office of the Regional
Transport Authority, Sarguja, Ambikapur.
2. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, the period of the permit issued in favour of
the petitioner has come to an end on 31-3-2010. Thus, the
issue involved herein has become academic.
3. I have heard leaned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended
thereto.
4. The dispute involved in the case on hand is that the
petitioner is plying the stage carriage on the basis of
permanent permit on the route Ambikapur to Jashpur via
Manora, Aasta, Kusmi, Deepadih, Shankargarh, Bariyo &
Rajpur, as is evident from Annexures P/2 & P/3. The
respondent No.4 has been granted permit vide Annexure P/4
on the same route i.e. Karoundha to Portenga via Kusmi,
Aasta, Manora & Jashpur. There is clash of timing. The
petitioner was granted permit on the said route for the
period from 01/04/2005 to 31/03/2010. Permit of the
petitioner has come to an end on 31/03/2010. Thus, this
petition has become infructuous.
5. The petitioner, by way of amendment, seeks to
challenge the route granted to the petitioner on the basis
of subsequent permits granted to him. This petition arise
from the order dated 15/07/2009 passed by the State
Transport Appellate Tribunal, the subsequent development
cannot be questioned in the present petition, which is
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
particularly when the dispute has become infructuous.
6. It is well settled principle of law that if the
matter has become infructuous on the facts of the case and
question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is
not necessary to examine the case, as observed by Supreme
Court in several matters. (See Basheshar Nath v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and
another1, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi2,
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Boradcasting, Govt.
of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and
others3, State of Manipur and others v. Chandam Manihar
Singh4, Amit Das v. State of Bihar5 and Prakash Singh
Badal and another v. State of Punjab and others6).
7. Applying the well settled principle of law and for
the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
8. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
J u d g e
