Madhya Pradesh High Court
Heera Singh Nayak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 October, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50818
1 WA-2126-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 2126 of 2024
HEERA SINGH NAYAK AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey -
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Amit Seth - Additional Advocate General for respondents-State.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 2275 of 2024
BHUPENDRA TRAVELS AND ANOTHER
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey -
Advocate for appellants.
Shri Amit Seth - Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 2-State.
Shri Ravindra Nath Tripathi & Shri Subodh Pandey - Advocate for respondent
No.3.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
In W.A. No.2126 of 2024, the appellants have challenged the order
dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.24085 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50818
2 WA-2126-2024
2024 (Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. State of M.P. & others) whereby the writ
petition filed by respondent No.3 herein has been disposed of with a
direction that no fresh temporary permit shall be granted after 31st October,
2024 unless and until the subject route is included in the reciprocal
agreement.
2. In W.A. No.2275 of 2024 the appellants have challenged the order dated
02.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.24453 of 2024
(Indramani Dubey vs. State of M.P. and others) whereby the said writ
petition has been disposed of with the same directions, as aforesaid.
3. Since in both these intra-court appeals, a common question of fact and
law is involved, therefore, both are heard together and decided by this
common order. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are taken
from W.A. No.2126 of 2024.
4. The present appeal has been filed on as many as 12 grounds. However,
the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has confined his
arguments only to Grounds B, C and D, which are reproduced as under:-
"B. Because, the Hon'ble Single Bench has not pleased to look
this aspect the respondent No.3 has no locus to challenge the
temporary permits of the appellants, which were granted on the
basis of the concurrence by the authority in the interest of the
travelling public.
C. Because, the case referred by the Hon'ble Single Bench
reported in AIR 1999 SC 3888 (Ashwani Kumar and other vs.
RTA Bikaner) is not applicable in the present case.
D. Because, the Hon'ble Single Bench has not pleased to
consider the settled law laid down in the case of Hrudayanand
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50818
3 WA-2126-2024
Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2001(1) MPLJ 466
as well as order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh
in W.P. No.2110/2005."
5. The case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that the
route from Nagpur to Shahdol via Seoni, Mandla, Dindori and Burar is not
the part of the reciprocal agreement, therefore, no regular stage carriage
permit can be granted to ply bus on the said route. It was contended that for
the last 3-4 years the authorities are granting temporary permit to ply the bus
thereby giving a complete go bye to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,
which prohibits the grant of regular stage carriage permit to ply a bus on the
route, which is not included in the reciprocal agreement.
6. The learned Single Judge observed that the respondents have conceded
that Nagpur to Shahdol route via Seoni, Mandla, Dindori and Burar is not
included in the reciprocal agreement, however, their contention was that as
per the provisions of Section 88(7) of the Motor Vehicle Act, a Regional
Transport Authority of one region may issue a temporary permit under
Section 87 to be valid in another region or State with the concurrence, given
generally or for the particular occasion, of the Regional Transport Authority
of that other region or State Transport Authority of that other State, as the
case may be. In the present case, concurrence has been granted by
Maharashtra Authority and even the temporary permit has been
countersigned.
7. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50818
4 WA-2126-2024
another vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and another (AIR 1999
SC 3888), wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:
"A. Motor Vehicles - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.88(1), (5) &
(6) - Inter-State permit-Conditions precedent for issuance of -
Existence of an inter-State route reciprocally created by the States
concerned, held, is such a condition precedent - An inter-State
route cannot be created unilaterally by one State or an authority
therein - Hence, in absence of an inter-State route, grant of inter-
State permits, held, illegal-Interpretation of Statutes- External
aids-History of legislation- Taken into consideration - Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 - Interpretation of Statutes-Statement of
Objects and Reasons- Taken into consideration."
8. The learned Single Judge also took note of the submission of the writ
petitioner that even as per Serial No.26 and 27 of the Agenda dated
31.07.2024, the competent authority was aware of the fact that Nagpur-
Shahdol route is outside the reciprocal agreement and thus, should not have
granted temporary permit whereas the contention of the appellants herein is
that once the concurrence has been awarded by the Maharashtra authorities
and even the temporary permit has been counter-signed, therefore, there is no
impediment for the appellants to continue with the said permit. Having thus
considered, the learned Single Judge observed that once the authorities
cannot issue a regular stage carriage permit to ply a bus on a route which is
outside the reciprocal agreement, then the said provision cannot be bypassed
by regularly granting temporary permit to ply the bus on such route.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no
interference is called for.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents have drawn attention of this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:50818
5 WA-2126-2024
to Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 whereby the provision
for granting temporary permit is for temporary need and effective for limited
period. However, the sole contention of the learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants is that it is only a temporary permit which is granted to the
appellants for the first time and the reciprocal agreement is for grant of
regular permits and that too the said agreement is more than 15 years old and
there is a need to ply bus in public interest.
11. Undisputedly, the respondents-authorities have continued to grant
temporary permit for the period of 2-3 years or even in some cases for more
than that, which is against the mandate of Section 87(1)(c) of the said Act. In
this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Single
Judge has rightly directed the respondent No.2 that no fresh temporary
permit shall be granted after 31st of October, 2024 unless and until the
subject route is included in the reciprocal agreement.
12. In view of the above, we find no error or perversity in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, both these appeals being devoid of
merit, are accordingly dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
S/
