Chhattisgarh High Court
CONT/785/2021 of SANJAY SINGH Vs PREM PRAKASH SHARMA on 1 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39023 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 785 of 2021 Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Matabux Singh, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Rama World Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Prem Prakash Sharma The Than
CGHC010272282021
2026:CGHC:39023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CONT No. 785 of 2021
Sanjay Singh S/o Shri Matabux Singh, Aged About 47 Years Occupation Bus Operator, R/o Rama World Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Prem Prakash Sharma The Than Regional Transport Officer Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) Now Presently Posted At Municipal Council Kondagaon District Kondagaon (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Gopi Chand Meshram, Joint Secretary Regional Transport Authority Raipur (Chhattisgarh), 3 - Rakesh Kumar Goutam S/o Siddnath Goutam, Power Of Attorney Holder Of Shahnawaj Khan Bus Operator Tifra New Bus Stand Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), 4 - Sandip Kumar Gupta Incharge Officer Flying Squad R.T.O. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondents
For Petitioner
:
Shri Shailendra Kumar Bajpai, Advocate.
For respondent
No.2
:
Shri Udit Khatri, Advocate.
For respondent
No.4
:
Shri Gajendra Prakash Sahu, Advocate
appears on behalf of Shri Abhishek Thakur, Advocate.
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 02/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that after passing of the interim order, no further order has been passed with regard to the permit subject matter of the writ petition nor any action has been taken against the petitioner herein.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 also submits that no action has been taken against the petitioner with regard to his plying the vehicle based on the permit pursuant to the interim order.
3. When this Court posed question to learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties as to whether the respondents herein/contemnors have interfered with the plying of the vehicle after passing of the order and filing of this contempt petition, he submits that no such information has been given to him by the petitioner.
4. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find appropriate to continue with this contempt petition any further as the respondents have not violated the interim order passed by this Court after filing of this contempt petition since last about five years.
5. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed and notice is discharged. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
gouri