Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swarn Kant Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 September, 2021
Author: Chief Justice
1 WA-787-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WA-787-2021
(SWARN KANT TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 08-09-2021
Mr. Narendra Nath Tirpathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Darshan Soni, Government Advocate for the respondents-State on
advance copy.
Mr. Ashish Rawat, Advocate for the respondent No.4 on advance
copy.
This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 13.08.2021 passed
in WP-15043-2021 [Mohammad Izrail vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
and others] by which the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ
petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent No.4 herein) has merely
required the competent authority to consider the objection of the writ
petitioner by taking note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Tanshukhlal Talati vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal
reported in ILR 2012 MP 1872. The arguments of the writ petitioner before
the learned Single Judge was that the appellant has been granted temporary
permit on the route on which he already holds a permanent permit and that
not only the route overlaps but also the time is overlapping and that no public
notice nor objections were invited by the competent authority before issuing
such temporary permit in compliance of Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act").
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge
could not have granted liberty to the writ petitioner/respondent No.4 to file
objection even though he has no locus. It is argued that in an identical matter
another Single Bench of this Court in WP-1176-2018 [ISBT Bus Operator
Association Jabalpur Bus Termainal Deen Dayal Chowk Jabalpur vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh] passed similar order on 18.01.2018, but in the
appeal filed against the said order, the learned counsel appearing for the writ
Signature Not
SAN
Verified petitioner/respondent was allowed to withdraw the writ petition with the
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.09.09
16:20:18 IST
2 WA-787-2021
liberty to avail statutory remedy before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
(STAT). But simultaneously learned counsel for the appellant also contended
that the respondent No.4 does not have any locus to even file an appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his argument has relied on
Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India and others reported in 1992 AIR 443.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the other hand submitted
that since no public notice was issued nor objections were invited by the
official respondents in terms of Section 112 of the MV Act, the respondent
No.4/writ petitioner merely wanted that his objection should be considered in
the light of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tanshukhlal
Talati (supra) especially when the appellant is holding permanent permit on
the same route and the timing is also overlapping.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties and perusing the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge
has merely passed an innocuous order granting liberty to the writ
petitioner/respondent No.4 to raise objection before the competent authority.
We would additionally direct that the competent authority while hearing the
objection of the respondent No.4 shall also grant an opportunity of hearing to
the appellant herein on all his arguments including on the locus of the
respondent/writ petitioner before passing any final order.
With aforesaid observation but without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
[email protected]
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SAIFAN KHAN
Date: 2021.09.09
16:20:18 IST
