Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jaymal Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17740
1 WP-16459-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 14 th OF OCTOBER, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 16459 of 2023
JAYMAL SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gitesh Marwah - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M S Jadon- Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not
filed against any specific order but seeking direction to the respondent No.2 to
consider and adjust the amount already deposited against Motor Vehicle Tax on
the Vehicle No. MP 07 HB 4502 as required under M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan
Adhiniyam Avam Niyam 1991.
2. A reply to the petition had been filed by the respondent stating that vide
order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure R/1) the application preferred by the petitioner
to deposit quarterly tax has been rejected and vide order dated 26.07.2023
(Annexure R/2), the representation filed by the petitioner has also been decided in
view of Section 14(5)(e) of M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam Avam Niyam
1991.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that both the
orders are totally illegal and arbitrary as the same have been passed behind the
back of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing had been provided to him,
therefore, both the orders being contrary to the settled principle of law deserves to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-GWL:17740
2 WP-16459-2023
be set aside.
4. The aforesaid aspect could not be controverted by the learned
Government Advocate.
5. Though in the relief clause no prayer for setting aside both the orders
Annexure R/1 and R/2 have been made but in wake of the submission as made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that both the orders i.e. order
dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure R/1) and order dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure R/2) are
unreasoned and non-speaking order, which in the light of judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Masood
Ahmed Khan, reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 (para 51) is unsustainable, wherein it
is observed that even Quasi Judicial authorities are required to pass reasoned and
speaking order and in absence thereof, it could be said that principles of natural
justice have not been followed. Accordingly, order dated 15.06.2023 (Annexure
R/1) and order dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure R/2) are hereby set-aside and the
matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 to decide afresh in consonance with the
provisions of Section 8 (3 and 4) of M.P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991
within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in
accordance with law.
6. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
