SANDEEP JAISWAL vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPC/4580/2025

Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: CGHC010364612025

Filing Number

WPC/22757/2025

Filing Date

19-Aug-2025

Registration No

WPC/4580/2025

Registration Date

23-Aug-2025

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL MATTERS ( 17 )

Sub-Category

STATE CARRIAGE PERMITS. ( 1709 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Last updated 06-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANDEEP JAISWAL

    Adv. SHAILENDRA KUMAR BAJPAI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.The Regional Transport Authoriy,

  3. 3.S. Prakash,

    Adv. GHANSHYAM PATEL,D.L.DEWANGAN SHRISTI UPADHYAY

  4. 4.K.K Patel Joint Secretary,

  5. 5.Pushparaj Sharma

    Adv. Bharat Lal Dembra

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: WPC 4580/2025 Sandeep Jaiswal challenged a vehicle permit issued to Respondent No. 5, claiming it violated legal provisions. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing an alternative remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be exhausted first. The court deferred the maintainability objection to final hearing and adjourned the case to the week commencing 15.06.2026 for final hearing on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 22-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore PrasadView PDF

  4. 19-Dec-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

  5. 28-Aug-2025

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar VermaView PDF

  6. 28-Aug-2025

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

  7. 19-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPC/4580/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPC 4580/2025 Sandeep Jaiswal challenged a vehicle permit issued to Respondent No. 5, claiming it violated legal provisions. The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, arguing an alternative remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be exhausted first. The court deferred the maintainability objection to final hearing and adjourned the case to the week commencing 15.06.2026 for final hearing on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case