Shahzeb Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 3507 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 31860 of 2018
 
Petitioner :- Shahzeb Ali
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Nazish Iqbal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J.

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rakesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, who has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record.

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents.

Notices need not to be sent to the respondents as the respondents are already represented.

Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute with respect to the offending provisions of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, which were put to challenge all over the country before the different High Courts, interim orders have been passed and further that Madras High Court has already quashed the said offending provision vide judgment and order dated 03.04.2017 passed in bunch of writ petitions leading petition being Writ Petition No.1598 of 2017; Chennai City Auto Ootunargal Sangam vs. The Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Union Government, New Delhi & others, a copy whereof is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the petition. Further interim orders of different High Courts have also been enclosed to the writ petition.

In view of the above, the present petitioner is also entitled to get interim protection.

We, accordingly provide that the respondents are restrained from recovery of any amount towards additional fee over and above the regular fee.

The respondents are at liberty to file their respective counter affidavits along with stay vacation application, if so advised.

Order Date :- 1.11.2018

Suresh/

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] [Vikram Nath,J.]