Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gorishankar Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 2176 of 2025
GORISHANKAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi - senior counsel with Shri Himanshu
Sharma - learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri N K Gupta- senior counsel with Shri Ishwar Singh Jadon,
Kamlendra Pratap Singh Jadona and Yashasvi Pratap Singh Rathore
-learned counsel for the respondent [R-3].
Shri Sohit Mishra - G.A. for the respondent No.1 and 2/State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on 30.01.2025
Delivered on 19.02.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is directed against the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by
respondent No.2 by which the application preferred by the petitioner
for grant of temporary permit on the route Ujjain to Trimbakeshwar
for a single trip daily had been rejected while allowing the
application preferred by the respondent No.3 and temporary permit
had been granted to the respondent No.3 for a period 20.12.2024 to
31.03.2025 and the temporary permit dated 17.12.2024 is issued in
favour of the petitioner.
2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a bus
operator and is resident of District Barwani had applied for
temporary permit for the route Ujjain to Trimbakeshwar, which is a
route between the State of M.P. and State of Maharashtra notified
under the reciprocal agreement between the two States. The
petitioner for the aforesaid route had offered a bus bearing
registration No.MP09-FA-7408 having sitting capacity of 36 + 1
passengers and is of 2016 model.
3. The present respondent no. 3 - Kunal Yadav had also filed
an application for grant of permit on the same route for the same
period and had offered a vehicle having registration no. MP-
13/P/3332, a model of 2017.
4. The Secretary, State Transport Authority after hearing both
the applications for grant of temporary permit, rejected the
application of the present petitioner holding that the petitioner was
previously granted a temporary permit for the route in question but
the said temporary permit had not been countersigned by the State of
Maharashtra and it is not the intention of the petitioner to get it
countersigned and deposit motor vehicle tax in the State of
Maharashtra, thus, looking to the poor record of the petitioner in
operating vehicles, the application filed by the petitioner was
rejected and the application filed by the respondent No.3 was
allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
impugned order passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority
deserves to be quashed in view of the fact that there is failure on the
part of Secretary, State Transport Authority to properly evaluate and
consider the comparative merits of the petitioner, including his
extensive experience operating on the Ujjain to Trimbakeshwar route
and his established infrastructure (garage and workshop in Indore
and Sendhwa). This oversight resulted in an arbitrary and unjust
decision to grant the temporary permit to Respondent No. 3, who
lacks similar qualifications, experience, and facilities.
6. It was further submitted that respondent No.2 vide
impugned order dated 12.12.2024 has held that vehicle of
Respondent No.3 is more meritorious than the vehicle of petitioner,
despite both vehicles being of identical specifications (both 2016
models with a seating capacity of 37), is arbitrary and biased. The
failure to conduct a fair and objective evaluation of both vehicles'
eligibility undermines the fairness of the decision-making process
and creates an unjust advantage for Respondent No. 3.
7. It is further submitted that rejection of the petitioner's
application based on the absence of countersignature by the State of
Maharashtra is unreasonable and unjust. The delay or refusal by
Maharashtra authorities to countersign permits from Madhya
Pradesh has been a systemic issue, and penalizing the petitioner for
this inefficiency violates the principles of fairness. Moreover, this
reasoning appears to be a pretext for favouring Respondent No. 3,
who may benefit from the failure to countersign the petitioner's
permit.
8. It is further submitted that the decision of respondent No.3
to grant the permit to Respondent No. 3, despite the petitioner's
superior qualifications, raises concerns of arbitrariness and bias. The
petitioner possesses extensive experience in the bus business, a
sound financial position, and established garage and workshop
facilities in both Indore and Sendhwa, which were disregarded by
Respondent No. 2. In contrast, Respondent No. 3, lacks experience
in the bus business or on the route, was granted the permit. This
decision deviates from established practices, lacking transparency,
consistency, and fairness, and undermines the credibility of the
decision making process.
9. It is further submitted that this Hon'ble Court in W.P.
No.22954 of 2024, Jayesh Maehshwari Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh and others has categorically held in Paragraph 23 to 25 that
reasoning is the essence of an order, and any decision rendered
without a proper critical evaluation of the merits and demerits of the
competing applications is legally unsustainable. The Court further
observed that merely preparing a comparative chart, without
applying a reasoned and judicious mind, does not constitute a valid
basis for decision making.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that
the present petition filed by the petitioner is grossly misconceived. The State
Transport Appellate Tribunal has considered all aspects of the matter while
considering the eligibility of the vehicle of respondent No.3. The petitioner
is an operator who has been plying vehicle on permit since the year 2023
but did not try to get countersigned the same. The Transport Authority had
seized and challaned the vehicle of the petitioner due to invalid permit. It is
further submitted that vide Annexure R/3 a copy of challan dated
13.12.2024 has been filed wherein it is mentioned that the vehicle of the
petitioner was detected carrying 40 passengers travelling from nashik to
indore as a stage carriage without any valid permit whereas the permit was
issued to the petitioner for the route Ujjain to Trimbakeshwar. Thus, looking
to the conduct of petitioner, State Transport Authority did not commit any
error while granting permit in favour of the respondent No.3. Hence, the
present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
11. Heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
12. The record reflects that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3
applied for grant of temporary permit. The status of the vehicles of
petitioner as well as respondent No.3 were taken into consideration by
Secretary, State Transport Authority. The Secretary, State Transport
Authority upon considering the past performance of the petitioner in
operating vehicle rejected the application submitted of the petitioner and
granted temporary permit to the respondent No.3 which is valid till
31/03/2025. The said order also contains as many as 12 conditions which
have been incorporated at the bottom of the order. Firstly, in order to deal
with this issue, it is important to take note of the reply filed by the
respondent. Along with the reply, respondent No.3 has brought on record
copy of the challans issued to the petitioner's vehicle which are contained in
Annexure R/3. A perusal of the challans (Annexure R/3) reveals that on
various occasions challans were issued to the petitioner on account of plying
the vehicle on another route without any valid permit or non grant of permit.
13 Section 87 of the Motor Vehicle Act which deals with temporary
permit is reproduced below:-
"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)for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions
such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or
(b)for the purposes of a seasonal business, or
(c)to meet a particular temporary need, or
(d)pending decision on an application for the renewal of a
permit,and may attach to any such permit such condition as it
may think fit:
Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the
case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods
carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and
for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period
exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any
route or area where
(i)no permit could be issued under section 72 or section 74
or section 76 or section 79 in respect of that route or area by
reason of an order of a Court or other competent authority
restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the
period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or
(ii)as a result of the suspension by a Court or other
competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that
route or area, there is no transport vehicle of the same class with a
valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no
adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area,
for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension:
Provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of
which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the
number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of the permits
have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been
suspended. "
14. Section 87 (1)(a) provides that for the conveyance of passengers
on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, a
temporary permit can be granted. Similarly, for the purposes of a seasonal
business, a temporary permit can also be granted.
15. Thus, from the provisions of the aforesaid Section, it
is permissible to the Regional/State Transport Authority to issue temporary
permits to be effective for a limited period which shall, not in any case
exceed four months.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Patiala Bus (Sirhind)
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab reported in
1974 AIR (SC) 1174, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid the
guidelines for consideration of the applications for grant of temporary
permits which includes experience of rival claimants, their past
performance, availability of the standby vehicles with them, their financial
resources, facility of well equipped workshop possessed by them etc.
17. In the light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the matter of Patiala Bus (Sirhind) (supra), this Court is of the considered
opinion that no illegality has been committed by State Transport Authority
in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary
permit considering his past performance.
18. However, as the period provided for the temporary permit is
coming to an end, the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 shall be at
liberty to move their respective future applications for grant of the same.
19. So far as the judgment relied upon by the petitioner Jayesh
Maheshwari (supra) is concerned, since the same attends different
facts and circumstances, therefore, it is not applicable in the present
case.
20. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
ojha JUDGE
