Rajendra Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 614 MP

                           1

             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                       W.P-5724-2021
              (RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)




Gwalior, Dated :10.03.2021

      Shri R.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri    D.D.    Bansal,    learned     Govt.   Advocate,     for   the

respondents/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

(1) Challenging made to order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the

respondent No.3 whereby a Vehicle bearing registration

No.MP06P1041 has illegally being seized in contravention of permit

condition under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Sec.16(3) of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991.

(2) It is alleged that the seizer made by the authorities is contrary to

the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court Mahendra Arora

Vs. The Transport Commissioner MP Gwalior, reported in AIR

1993 MP 29 (DB). It is argued that the reason for seizer of the vehicle

was shown to be that the vehicle was flied for a different purposes

other than for which the permit was issued by the authorities. It is

argued that although the seizer is contrary to the order passed by the

Division Bench of this Court, he prays for the release of the vehicle.

(3) Per contra, counsel for the State has opposed the prayer

contending therein that the remedy of appeal is available under

Section 20 of M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. In absence

of availing such alternative remedy, the petition directly filed before

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh W.P-5724-2021 (RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

this Hon'ble Court is not maintainable. It is argued that the order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court is factually different as in

the order passed by the Division Bench, the question was with respect

to imposition of tax refund of tax to the petitioner was considered. In

the present case, vehicle is being run contrary to the permit which has

been issued to the petitioner for plying the vehicle. The permit was

issued for carrying the passengers for marriage parties and the vehicle

was found being running in contravention to the permit conditions and

was carrying the passengers from one place to another. There was no

permit for flying the vehicle in such a matter to the petitioner. No

document could have been produced by the petitioner showing that he

has permit to carry the passengers from one place to another, in a

routine manner.

(4) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(5) From the perusal of the record, it is seen that the vehicle in

question is being run contrary to the conditions of the permit as the

permit was granted only to carry the passengers with respect to

marriage parties, whereas the petitioner's vehicle was found carrying

the passengers from one place to another as a normal transport vehicle.

In such conditions the petitioner could not point out any document that

he has permitted to carry the passengers in such manner. The

petitioner is having a remedy of appeal under Section 20 of M.P.

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh W.P-5724-2021 (RAJENDRA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and for want of alternative

remedy, this petition is not maintainable. Reliances were made on the

judgment passed in the case of Rajendra Singh Chhabra Vs. State of

M.P. and Others reported in 2003(3) MPLJ 426 wherein the court has

taken note of the Division Bench judgment passed in this Court in the

case Mahendra Arora (supra). Reliances were further placed on a

judgment in the case of Mukesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of M.P. and

Others as reported in AIR 2000 MP 50 and also in the case of

Shailendra Kumar Motwani Vs. State of M.P. and Others as

reported in 2011 STPL 22566 MP. The petitioner is having an

alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 20 of

the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. In such circumstances,

this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition for want of

alternative remedy. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petitioner

is free to avail the remedy available under the law.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

                                                   (Vishal Mishra)
mani                                                   Judge

  SUBASRI MANI
  2021.03.12
  18:21:10
  -08'00'