Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10462 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3201 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitesh Kumar Jauhari,Ashutosh Sharma,Suresh Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner;Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Suresh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order impugned dated 11.11.2022 passed by the third respondent(Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition). With a further prayer commanding the respondent no. 1 to 3 to register the vehicle in question namely "Vikram CNG 1500 CG Passenger" bearing Chasis No. MCYL5S467601384BM and Engine No. A8K1246122 within stipulated period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order impugned is per se unsustainble as admittedly the vehicle in question was purchased prior to the cut-off date i.e. 30.04.2020. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in M.C.Mehta v/s. Union of India & Ors (IA Nos. 45883/2020, 45912/2020 & 48113/2020 in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 13029/1985, dt. 27.03.2020).

Per contra Sri Shukla, learned ACSC raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that against the order impugned, the petitioner has got efficacious alternative remedy to file an appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and as such the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.

Once an objection is being raised, we have proceeded to examine the record and we are of the considered opinion once the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy.

In the facts and circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case any such appeal is being preferred by the petitioner within a week from today, the appellate authority would proceed to decide the same on its own merit within further six weeks time ignoring the delay and laches in filing the same but certainly after affording opportunity to all stakeholders in the matter.

Order Date :- 10.4.2023

A.K.Srivastava