Writ Petition No. 6374 of 2005 · Chhattisgarh High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 87(1), 88(7)
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Transport. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.) Present Mr. B.K. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19th of December 2005)…
Judgment
Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition No. 6374 OF 2005 Mohd. Hasan Khan, S/o Shri All Ahmed Khan, aged about 50 years, R/o Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Transport. D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). Secretary, State Transport Authority, Raipur (C.G.) Present Mr. B.K. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 19th of December 2005) The grievance of the petitioner is that though he made an application on 3.10.2005 for grant of temporary permit on the route Bilaspaur to Allahabad u/s 87(1) read with Section 88(7) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 till the regular permit is granted on the above inter-state route, the 2nd respondent has not yet decided and passed any order on that application. In that view of ttie matter, I dispose of the writ petition. directing the 2nd respondent, Secretary, Stete Transport Authority, Raipur to consider and dispose of the above application of the petjtioner, if not already done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice R.^.0
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 87(1), 88(7).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 19 Dec 2005.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.