Umesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 218 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 218 MP
Judgement Date : 25 February, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Umesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 February, 2021

Author: Vishal Mishra

                                             1
                       THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                            W.P.No.3868/2021
                       (Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P.)

Gwalior, Dated :25.02.2021

      Shri Man Singh Jadon, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri    Sanjay    Kumar      Sharma,       Govt.   Advocate   for   the

respondent/State.

Shri N.K. Gupta, senior counsel with Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

counsel for the respondent No.3.

Withe the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

5.2.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the respondent No.3

has been granted the temporary permit for plying his vehicle from Lahar

to Gwalior and Gwalior to Lahar on the same route on which the

petitioner is plying his vehicle. Challenge is being made on several

grounds. One of the ground that the respondent No.3 is a defaulter with

respect to payment of taxes which is reflected from Annexure P/11

document dated 3.7.19 wherein the tax to the tune of Rs.2,73,300/- is

due to be paid by the respondent No.3 on vehicle No.MPO7F-1271. The

case was listed for hearing on 23.02.2021 and considering the judgment

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.555 of 2013 in the

case of Mohammad Safique vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal

and Others, which is based upon the judgment in the case of M.P. State

Road Transport Corporation Gwalior vs. Ram Prasad Purohit and

Others reported in 2001 (3) MPLJ 339, has granted interim relief to the

petitioner.

By filing a response to the interim relief application by the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.3868/2021 (Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P.)

respondent No.3 it is pointed out that the respondent No.3 is not a

defaulter and a certificate has been issued under the seal and signatures

of the taxation authority Gwalior dated 28.01.2021 to the following

effect:-

**izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd okgu Lokeh Jh eqds'k flag fuoklh Xokfy;j dh ;k=h okgu dzekad MP-32-P-0157 cSBd {kerk 50+2 tks fd LFkkbZ ijfeV dzekad [email protected]/GWL/99 ij ekxZ Xokfy;j ls ygkj ,d ,dy Qsjk izfrfnu ij lapkyu dj jgh gS A ftldk eksVj ;ku dj LekVZ dkMZ pkVZ ds vuqlkj ekg tuojh 2021 rd tek gS A okgu ij dksbZ dj cdk;k ugha gS ,oa okgu ij /kkjk 86 ,oa vkZfMV dks dksbZ izdj.k yfEcr ugha gS A**

**izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd okgu Lokeh Jh eqds'k flag fuoklh Xokfy;j dh ;k=h okgu dzekad MP-07-F-1271 cSBd {kerk 50+2 tks fd LFkkbZ ijfeV dzekad [email protected]/GWL/99 ij ekxZ Xokfy;j ls ygkj ,d ,dy Qsjk izfrfnu ij lapkyu dj jgh gS A ftldk eksVj ;ku dj LekVZ dkMZ pkVZ ds vuqlkj ekg tuojh 2021 rd tek gS A okgu ij dksbZ dj cdk;k ugha gS ,oa okgu ij /kkjk 86 ,oa vkZfMV dks dksbZ izdj.k yfEcr ugha gS A**

The documents pertains to the vehicle No. MP-32-P-0157 and

MP-07-F-1271 Public Transport Vehicle having a capacity of 50+2

passengers. The certificate is issued to the effect that no dues are pending

against the respondent No.3 in form of the tax.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid certificates

are being issued only on the basis of smart card chart and not on the basis

of the actual data records and the authorities have not clearly mentioned

in the document that there are no dues to be paid.

On the contrary, another document is being filed by the respondent

pointing out the fact that the petitioner himself is a defaulter towards the

tax and total deficiency on the vehicle no.MP07-P-1602 is Rs.139208

and on vehicle which is being sublet by the petitioner to one Dinesh and

was driven on the permit of the petitioner being GJ05-AV-2899 shows a

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.3868/2021 (Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P.)

deficiency of Rs.1,92,245/-. In such circumstances and as per the settled

legal proposition the petitioner is not having any locus to file the present

petition. It is further submitted by the respondent No.3 that the petitioner

is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 90 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to prefer a revision against the impugned order

and the petition directly filed before this Hon'ble Court is not

maintainable. He has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in

the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees vs. State of M.P. and Others,

reported in 2019(3) MPLJ 656, wherein the Division Bench of this

Court has affirmed the order passed by the Single Judge whereby he has

refused to entertain the writ petition for want of alternative remedy under

Section 90 of the Act. In such circumstances, he has prayed for dismissal

of the petition.

It is seen from the records that there are several disputed question

of facts involved in the writ petition. Initially, as the petitioner has

pointed out that the respondent No.3 is a defaulter which is countered by

filing a document of the taxation authority showing that the defaults have

been cleared but subsequently the respondent has also pointed out the

fact that these are the only documents on the basis of the smart card

records and not on the basis of actual records. The respondent No.3 is

still a defaulter and several other arguments are being raised regarding

plying of vehicle by transferring the vehicle to the other operators or in

other names just to avoid tax. In such circumstances, this Court refrains

from entertaining the writ petition for want of alternative remedy.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.3868/2021 (Umesh Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P.)

This Court in the case of Sheikh Mohd. Anees (supra) has held

has under:-

8. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the writ petitioners/appellants had no right to be heard. If they were aggrieved they could have challenged the same in a revision under Section 90 of the Act, but they had directly approached this Court to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. In the case of Baddula Lakshmaiah and others vs. Sri Anjaneya Swami Temple and others, (1996) 3 SCC 52, the Apex Court ruled that in an intra-court appeal the appellate Court is a Court of Correction which corrects its own orders, in exercise of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of subordinate court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error."

This Court in the case M/s. Parihar Transport Company Vs.

Secretary State of M.P., 2010 (1) MPHT (DB), has held that appeal or

revision order refusing grant of permit. Appeal lies against such order

vide Section 89 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Order granting

permit. Revision lies against such order vide Section 90 of Motor

Vehicles Act ,1988 and not appeal. Writ petition contending that appeal is

maintainable against the order granting permit negatived. Writ petition is

dismissed.

Therefore, it is concurrently held by the Division Benches of this

Court that the revision lies against the order granting permit to the

transporters. In such circumstances, this Court refrains from entertaining

the writ petition.