Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6688 MP

              1
            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                   Writ Petition No.10287/2022
       (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Gwalior Bench: Dated 05.05.2022
      Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

      Shri Deepak Khot, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents No.1 and 2/State.

Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Man Singh

Jadoun, learned counsel for the caveator.

With consent heard finally.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order

dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure P/1), passed by the Madhya Pradesh State

Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, whereby appeal preferred by

appellant has been partly allowed and matter has been remanded back

to the Regional Transport Authority, (R.T.A.), Gwalior to take a call

independently in respect of permit granted to the petitioner and

respondent No.3. Petitioner is further aggrieved by rejection of his

revision petition preferred by him against the order dated 23.02.2022

passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior and same was put

to challenge before the S.T.A.T., but the said revision was also

dismissed, therefore, again petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of said

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10287/2022 (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

revision petition.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the petitioner is a bus

operator and is having many buses to carry on work of transportation.

Petitioner's father Late Shri Ramnath Singh Sikarwar was also a bus

operator and after his death in the year 2019, permit has been

transferred in the name of petitioner's mother Smt. Siya Devi

Sikarwar.

3. Petitioner and respondent No.3 both applied for permit for the

route from Guna to Gwalior for a particular time frame before the

Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior Division Gwalior. Vide order

dated 23.02.2022 concerned authority passed an order in which while

considering the case of petitioner and respondent No.3 in juxtaposition

defined the formula of splitting of whole route by which route from

Guna to Shivpuri was given to the respondent No.3 and route from

Shivpuri to Gwalior was given to the petitioner on the time as

mentioned in the said order.

4. Respondent No.3 preferred an appeal against the order before

the S.T.A.T. under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act whereas

petitioner preferred the revision against the said order. Both appeal and

revision were clubbed together and decided by a common order dated

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10287/2022 (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

21.04.2022. Impugned order contained grounds for dismissal of

revision petition preferred by the petitioner whereas appeal preferred

by the respondent No.3 was partly allowed whereby matter has been

remanded back to the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior for fresh

adjudication.

5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that

learned S.T.A.T. caused illegality or arbitrariness in passing the

impugned order because petitioner may have dues left for payment as

his father did not pay the dues and petitioner has paid part payment of

the dues and is paying remaining dues, but no liability can be fastened

as per Section 72 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. It is nowhere

contemplated that dues of petitioner's father would cause restrictions

of his son for getting permit. Counsel relied upon the several

judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Mithilesh

Garg Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer, Park Town Division Madras Vs. Sha

Sukraj Peerajee reported in 1967 Legal Eagle (SC) 139, Arbind

Kumar Vs. Nand Kishore (Shah J.) reported in AIR 1965 SC 1227

and judgment dated 04.02.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.1616/1996

in the case of State of M.P. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal,

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10287/2022 (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Kishan Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2008 (I) MPJR 87,

judgment dated 11.02.2014 passed in W.P. No.555/2013 in case of

Mohammad Safique Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal to

support of his submission in the present case.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State

opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also opposed the

prayer on the ground that petitioner is the sole son of his father and

after death of his father Late Ramnath Singh Sikarwar in year 2019,

petitioner is operating buses through his mother Smt. Siya Devi

Sikarwar and some of the old payments have been made as

dues/settlement at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he has in

separable relationship with his father and mother and in absence of his

parents, petitioner is taking all decisions regarding making of all

payments. He referred the mode of payments done by petitioner as son

of his father to pay liability/dues from time to time. On the basis of

judgments referred above, he submitted that liability of petitioner's

father cannot be fastened over the petitioner and judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramsewak Sharma

Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2014 (4) MPJR 65 is not applicable in

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10287/2022 (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

the present case.

8. Since the petitioner is regularly paying his payments and made

part payments for settlement of dues till now, therefore, liability for

getting no dues certificate lies over the petitioner. It is further

submitted that petitioner is trying to monopolize the business because

there is not limit for grant of permit which can be given to operate in a

day, but petitioner and his mother (earlier his father) have

monopolized the business in which all buses plying between Guna to

Gwalior are under the ownership and management of petitioner,

therefore, he is seeking monopolization of this route. Respondent No.3

is an eyesore to petitioner and therefore, petitioner is taking all hectic

steps to avoid the respondent No.3 from the business.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended thereto.

10. This is a case where petitioner is taking exception to the order

dated 21.04.2022 passed by the Chairman, S.T.A.T.. Learned

Chairman has dealt with the payment mode done by the petitioner

towards for default of his late father from his account and even

payments made much before death of his father. All dues of taxes were

being paid by one Kuldeep Singh through his login I.D. Kuldeep98.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10287/2022 (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

Said aspect has been dealt with in the case of Ramsewak (supra).

Although in the said case, bus operator was Karta of Hindu Undivided

Family (H.U.F.) and therefore, case on the basis of said aspect

pronounced the verdict whereas in the present case also it does not

appear that HUF was available but it appears that petitioner was

regularly paying the dues of his father also.

11. Beside that one more glaring aspect in the case is regarding

principle of Public Policy. It is common knowledge that once a route is

monopolized by transporter then he intends to become casual and

erratic, which causes dent to public services and its welfare. Therefore,

it is imperative that more and more competitions should be made

available so that Government may have regular revenue and people

may have better services. If the petitioner is allowed to operate the

buses from Shivpuri to Gwalior then would create monopoly in trade

rather than public welfare. (See. Central Inland Water Transport

Corporation Limited and others Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and

other reported in (1986) 3 SCC 156 and judgment dated 06.07.2021

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Omnarayan

Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2021 (3) JLJ 308).

Therefore, to discourage monopoly of one transporter and thus,

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.10287/2022 (Kuldeep Singh Sikarwar Vs. State of M.P. and others)

decentralization of permits appear to be a right step towards ensuring

better transport facilities for a common man.

12. In the present case, matter has been remanded back to the

Regional Transport Authority for fresh adjudication, therefore, against

the said order of remand, no illegality, perversity and propriety is

apparent on record. Therefore, in limited scope of Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India for interference, petition stands dismissed.

Parties have to appear before the Regional Transport Authority and

abide by the orders so passed.

13. Petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2022.05.10 17:42:22 +05'30' 11.0.8