Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saurabh Lahiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2392
1 WP-21-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21 of 2025
SAURABH LAHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudarshan Joshi - Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Karanjawala - Advocate for respondent No.6.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure
P/1) passed by respondent No.1 and temporary permit dated 02.12.2024
(Annexure P/5) granted in favour of respondent No.6. The challenge by the
petitioner is primarily on the ground that without appreciating the need as
stipulated in Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, temporary
permit to respondent No.6 has been granted.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue as
raised in this petition has been dealt with and decided on a number of
occasions by this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of Suman Chaurasiya Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No.12762 of 2024) AIR Online
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2392
2 WP-21-2025
2024 MP 700, M/s. Mansarovar Bus Service Tikamagarh (Madhya Pradesh)
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No.9230/2024) AIR Online
2024 MP 702, Prabhat Pan and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others
AIR 2015 Calcutta 112 Full Bench, M.C. Ratheesh and Another Vs. The
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur and Another AIR 2015
Kerala 86 Full Bench, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,
through its General Manager, Bairagarh, Bhopal Vs. Regional Transport
Authority, Sagar and Others 1973 MPLJ 969, Tansukhlal Talati Vs. State
Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others (W.P. No.5239/2012 (Indore)
decided on 13.07.2012) I.L.R. (2012) M.P. 1872, Vivek Dwivedi and
Another Vs. Prem Narain and Others AIR 1999 Madhya Pradesh 1, Padam
Chand Gupta and Another Vs. State Transport Authority and Another 2014
(1) MPLJ 124 and Vallabhdas Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and
Others, AIR 1990 Madhya Pradesh 119.
03. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 has contended that temporary
permit in favour of respondent No.6 was granted quite a while back and is
coming to an end on 31.01.2025, hence only two days are left so far as
validity of the impugned temporary permit is concerned, hence there is no
justification for the matter to be decided on merits.
04. Having considered the submissions, perusal of record reflects that
challenge is to temporary permit on the ground that without discussing the
need in terms of the statutory provisions contained in Section 87(1)(c) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the temporary permit has been granted. The aforesaid
issue has been taken into consideration on number of occasions by this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:2392
3 WP-21-2025
and this Court while dealing with the identical issue has categorically held
that the Authority is required to take into consideration the need while
ascertaining first, number of vehicles already plying on the route in as much
as, if the vehicles which are already plying in the route are not sufficient in
number, there would be need to meet any emergent situation to grant
temporary permit.
05. The temporary permit granted in favour of respondent No.6 is
coming to an end in two days hence there is no necessity for decision of this
petition on merits as the issue raised herein has almost been rendered
academic. It is however observed that in case a fresh application is preferred
by respondent No.6 for grant of temporary permit to it or for grant of
permanent permit on that basis then prior to deciding its application,
respondents No.4 and 5 shall duly take into consideration the judgments of
this Court as referred to above and if any objection is preferred by the
petitioner to grant of such permit, then he shall also be afforded opportunity
of hearing prior to issuance of the permit.
With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
