Amit Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 13747 MP

                                - : 1 :-
                                                        W.P. No. 23572/2022


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT INDORE
                               BEFORE

                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

                   ON THE 18th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                WRIT PETITION No. 23572 of 2022

     BETWEEN:-
     AMIT GUPTA S/O SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA, AGED ABOUT
     45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 256, GUMASHTA NAGAR
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....PETITIONER
     (SHRI ROHIT KUMAR MANGAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
     PETITIONER.)

     AND
     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
1.   PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
     REGIONAL TRANPORT AUTHORITY THROUGH SECRETARY
2.
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
     ASSISTANT SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
3.
     INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
     MOTILAL YADAV S/O BHUJRAJ YADAV, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
4.   OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 57, NEW DEWAS ROAD, INDORE
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
     (SHRI AKASH SHARMA, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
     RESPONDENTS/STATE.)
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
                               ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by orders dated 28.9.2022 and 30.9.2022 (Annexure P/13 and P/14)

- : 2 :-

W.P. No. 23572/2022

whereby respondent No.2 has granted a temporary permit in favour of respondent No.4 to ply his vehicle for the period from 1.9.2022 to 30.9.2022 from Sendhwa to Indore (to and fro).

Shri Rohit Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having a permanent permit for the same route with departure from Sendhwa at 8.05 am. and arrival at Indore at 11.40 am., whereas respondent No.4 has been granted the temporary permit of the same route having departure from Sendhwa at 7.55 am. and arrival at Indore at 11.30 am., hence there is a serious clash of timing between of both the permits. If respondent No.4 is permitted to ply his vehicle prior time to the time of the permanent permit of the petitioner then it would result in the loss of passengers and business. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the aforesaid temporary permit has been granted to respondent No.4 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the impugned order and temporary permit are liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, Shri Akash Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the prayer by submitting that the name of the petitioner is reflected in the order dated 2.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Secretary, Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Indore as an objector and the objection raised by the petitioner has duly been considered. So far as an opportunity of hearing is concerned Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 nowhere provides a grant of opportunity of hearing. He further submits that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioner is having remedy to approach the STAT by way of revision u/s. 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

- : 3 :-

W.P. No. 23572/2022

Heard Admittedly, against the order dated 28.9.2022 the remedy lies before STAT by way of revision u/s. 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. So far as maintainability of the petition is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1988 )8 SCC 1 in which it is held that the writ petition maintainable where there is a violation of principles of natural justice. U/s. 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no such right has been given to the objector for the opportunity of hearing. Learned RTA has considered the objection of the petitioner while granting a temporary permit to respondent No.4. Even otherwise, the STAT is competent to examine the effect of violation of principles of natural justice along with other grounds. The petitioner is having alternative and efficacious remedy by way of revision before the STAT. With the aforesaid, this petition is not liable to be entertained by this Court.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed in limine.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2022.10.19 16:49:31 +05'30'