Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Khatri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1 WP-20305-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 8 th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 20305 of 2024
VIJAY KHATRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B.K. Dubey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State.
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for respondent No. 4.
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioners while praying for the
following reliefs:-
(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased »to
issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order
dated 03/07/2024 (Annex.-P/4) as well as temporary
permit of the respondent No. 4 (Annex.-P/6).
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus this
Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to
issue writ/direction to the respondent No. 3 not to grant
temporary permit without delegation of power under
rule 67 of the M.P. MotorVehicle Rules.
(iii) Any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court
2 WP-20305-2024
deem| fit in the circumstances. of the case, may also be
granted to the petitioner together with the cost of this
writ petition.
2. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that the petitioners are
engaged in the business of transportation and are holding regular as well as
temporary permits. Respondent No. 4 moved an application for grant of
temporary permit on Silwani-Bhopal route, on which the temporary permit
Annexure P-6 was issued to respondent No. 4 pursuant to impugned order
dated 3.7.2024 (Annexure P-4). Thus, challenging the order dated 3.7.2024
(Annexure P-4) as well as temporary permit (Annexure P-6), this petition has
been filed.
3. The counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No. 4 did
not elaborate temporary need in the application and therefore, the application
was in contravention to Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The
petitioners' objection was already there, inasmuch as, respondent No. 4 had
earlier applied for grant of temporary permit. The said objection was not
considered. Respondent No. 3 was duty bound to consider the objection of
the petitioners, yet without considering the same, the temporary permit
Annexure P-6 was issued vide impugned order dated 3.7.2024 (Annexure P-
4).
4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 3.7.2024
(Annexure P-4) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court
in Writ Petition No. 12880 of 2024 ( Ajit Kumar Jain Vs. The State of M.P.
& others) decided on 28.5.2024 wherein it has been held that in the
3 WP-20305-2024
application for grant of temporary permit, the need should be specified and
the Authority is also required to consider that the Buses already plying on the
route in question are not sufficient to cater the need of commuters. However,
this aspect has not been considered by the Authority while passing the
impugned order. It is contended that even this Court in Writ Petition No.
12762 of 2024 (Suman Chaurasiya Vs. The State of M.P. & others) decided
on 22.5.2024 observed that the Authority instead of issuing temporary
permit should try to grant regular stage carriage permit as the temporary
permit cannot be a substitute for stage carriage permit. It is further contended
by the counsel for the petitioners that in the impugned order it is mentioned
that respondent No. 4 in Column No. 5 of the application mentioned that
temporary permit was required as there was season of agricultural
production, commencement of academic session in schools/colleges and
festivals as well, as a result of which there was expectation of increase in
inflow of commuters. It is contended that such vague reasons could not have
been made basis to grant temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 4.
Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
5. The counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made in the
petition and it is submitted that the Authority after duly considering the need,
which was mentioned in Column No. 5 of the application has granted
temporary permit to respondent No. 4 in accordance with Section 87(1)(c) of
the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence no interference is required in this petition.
However, if the petitioners have any objection regarding timing as mentioned
in the impugned permit, it is always open to the petitioners to move objection
4 WP-20305-2024
before the Authority concerned.
6. The counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that this petition is a
device to mislead this Court. The petitioner has not approached this Court
with clean hands. The Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 825 of 2015
(Sushil Kumar Maity Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on 25.3.2015 held
that fast increase in number of both commercial as well as personal vehicles
in the country with the greater flow of passengers is a paramount
consideration. It is further contended that considering the aforesaid, grant of
temporary permit to respondent No. 4 cannot be faulted with. The counsel
has placed reliance on a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Writ
Appeal No. 961 of 2024 (Santoshbai Chouhan Vs. Regional Trnasport
Authority & another) and submitted that this Court also considered the
decision of the Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg Etc. Vs. Union of India and
others - (1992) 1 SCC 168. It was thought proper by the Apex Court
that there should be plenty of operators on every route to provide ample
choice to the commuter-public to board the vehicle of their choice and
patronise the operator who is providing the best service. The counsel for
respondent No. 4 has relied upon order dated 31.3.1993 passed by Division
Bench of this Court in M.P. No. 627 of 1993 and submitted that the looking
to the factum of growing population and consequent increase in number of
travelling public, grant of temporary permit is justified. Reliance has also
been placed on an order dated 19.4.2018 passed in W.P. No. 7913 of 2018
(Suryavansh Mishra Vs. The State of M.P.) . The counsel for respondent No.
4 while placing reliance on the order dated 26.7.2024 passed by this Court in
5 WP-20305-2024
W.P. No. 1775 of 2024 (Smt. Seema Pandey and others Vs. The State of
M.P. & others) has submitted that the present petitioners are free to raise
objection as regards timing.
7. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for the parties.
8. Heard submissions and perused the record.
9. To deal with the rival submissions, it is first apposite to refer to
Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The same is reproduced as
under:-
"87. Temporary permits .-(1) A Regional
Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority
may without following the procedure laid down in
section 80, grant permits to be effective for a limited
period which shall, not in any case exceed four months,
to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily-
(a) xxxxxxxxx
(b) xxxxxxxxx
(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or ........"
10. A perusal of aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Authority
while considering the application for grant of temporary permit is required to
appreciate the 'need'. The 'need' has direct nexus with the current status of
available means of transportation for the commuters and the 'need' must be
temporary in nature so as to cater the imminent situation where plying of
extra buses is necessary so as to ensure convenience to public at large.
6 WP-20305-2024
Therefore, pivotal issue in this petition which requires consideration by this
Court is as to whether the application so moved by respondent No. 4 for
grant of temporary permit contained the actual temporary need, which
warranted issuance of temporary permit and whether the Authority while
granting temporary permit to respondent No. 4 appreciated those needs while
simultaneously analyzing the availability of the regular stage carriage permit
on the same route.
11. Considering the state of affairs pertaining to transportation in the
country, the Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) observed as
under:-
"More operators mean healthy competition and
efficient transport system. Over-crowded buses,
passengers standing in the aisle, persons clinging to the
bus-doors and even sitting on the roof-top are some of
the common sights in this country. More often one finds
a bus which has noisy engine, old upholstery,
uncomfortable seats and continuous emission of black
smoke from the exhaust pipe. It is, there- fore,
necessary that there should be plenty of operators on
every route to provide ample choice to the commuter-
public to board the vehicle of their choice and patronize
the operator who is providing the best service."
12. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court reveal that required
considerations for grant of permission, is over-crowded buses, passengers
standing in the aisle, commuters clinging to the bus doors and even sitting on
the rooftop. Thus, consideration should be made while keeping in view
the convenience of the commuters. Therefore, when the Authority deals with
7 WP-20305-2024
an application for grant of temporary permit, it is required to first assess
temporary 'need'.
13. The 'need' has direct nexus with the convenience of public. It is not
the 'need' of the transporters but it is the need of the public at large, which
requires cogitative consideration as regards application for grant of
temporary permit. Therefore, while issuing temporary permit, the Authority
concerned should take into consideration the 'needs' as elaborated in colomn
No. 5 of the application, which is in prescribed format and accordingly grant
permit. The Authority while granting permit should also consider the aspect
as to whether there exists sufficient number of buses on the same route or
not. The Authority has to take into consideration the average flow of traffic
in common days and increase in traffic on a particular day, week or month
like festive season, academic session or other needs which requires imminent
consideration for grant of temporary permit in order to permit plying of extra
buses on the same route.
14. The competent Authority while dealing with an application for
temporary permit, must take into consideration the convenience aspect of the
public at large, which undisputedly includes elderly, females, children and
differently abled persons etc. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Authority
to elaborate in the order granting temporary permit that the existing buses
already operating on the route, are not adequate enough to fulfill the
demands of the commuters looking to the sudden influx and while
considering the same, the need which has been mentioned by the operator in
the application for temporary permit should be evaluated and accordingly,
8 WP-20305-2024
while passing the order of grant of temporary permit, the Authority should
discuss the aforesaid aspect in its order. The Authority can also take into
consideration any other special or extraordinary circumstances i.e. one
informed by the counsel for the State that currently stage carriage permits are
not being issued on account of non availability of the competent authority
and on account of said reason, grant of temporary permit is imperative.
Mentioning of aforesaid reasons in the order of grant of permit is sine qua
non and temporary permit should not be granted in a routine manner,
inasmuch as, if there exists adequate number of buses on a route, grant of
temporary permit in mechanical manner would result into traffic hazards and
also invite apprehension of untoward accidents on account of over-speeding
and overtaking. Luring commuters by bus operators is a common sight in our
country. Thus competition amongst operators cannot be ruled out. Therefore,
cautious decision while granting temporary permit is a condition precedent. It
is a bounden duty of the Authority to deal with an application for grant of
temporary permit objectively and proper reasons should be assigned in order
to grant temporary permit so as to safeguard larger interest of the public.
15. In the conspectus, if the impugned order dated 3.7.2024 is
scritinized, same would reflect that in Paragraph 2, the Authority has
mentioned the needs, which were detailed in column No. 5 of the application
for grant of temporary permit and accordingly the Authority concluded that
as there was temporary need, hence it would be desirable to grant temporary
permit in favour of respondent No. 4. Such reason so mentioned in
Paragraph 2 of the impugned order, in the considered view of this Court,
9 WP-20305-2024
does not satisfy the requirement of holistic considerations which have been
discussed hereinabove. The Authority having failed to discuss the adequacy
of the existing number of buses on the route in question and also the increase
in number of commuters under special situations/occasions discussed
hereinabove, the order impugned cannot be given stamp of approval.
16. Resultantly, the petition is allowed . The order dated 3.7.2024
(Annexure P-4) as well as temporary permit (Annexure P-6) are hereby set
aside. However, respondent No. 4 is at liberty to move an application afresh
for grant of temporary permit and the Authority shall deal with the same
while keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
PB
