Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amrish Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15832
1 WP-28756-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28756 of 2025
AMRISH SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma with Shri Gitesh Marwah -
Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri M S Jadon - GA appearing on behalf of State.
ORDER
t
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred seeking following reliefs:-
"It is therefore humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court
may be graciously pleased to allowed this petition and
kindly directed to the respondent for issuance of permit
in pursuance of the grant order dated 23.06.25 (Annexure
P/3) by issuing writ of "mandamus" or any suitable writ,
order or direction.
Any order deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed
reliance on para 3 of the judgment passed in the matter of Mohammad
Rafiq Akhtarbhai v State Transport Authority, reported in 1989 MPLJ
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15832
2 WP-28756-2025
803 which is reproduced as under:-
"In our opinion, the order impugned passed by the
Secretary, RTA (Annexure J) whereby he refuses to
issue the permit is illegal. The Secretary, RTA after the
renewal of the permit by the RTA has just to perform the
ministerial act of issuing the permit. He has got no
independent power to adjudicate upon the decision taken
by the RTA. He has also got no jurisdiction to withhold
the issuance of the permit in pursuance of the order
passed by the RTA. In the matter of issuance of the
permit, he acts as Secretary to the RTA and not as an
Executive Officer of the Transport Department, As such,
the RTO acts in two different capacities -- one is that of
the RTO and the other is that of Secretary, RTA.
Undisputedly in the matter of grant of issuance of
permit, the RTA is a quasi-judicial authority and if one is
aggrieved against the order of the RTA, he has to file a
revision or appeal before the STAT which has been
constituted u/s 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Therefore the order of the learned Secretary refusing
renewal is manifestly erroneous and violative of the
provisions of law. As regards the resolution of the STA,
this matter can always be considered at the time of the
renewal by the RTA but once a renewal having been
granted, the Secretary, RTA cannot refuse to issue the
renewal slip."
3. While placing reliance on the aforesaid para, learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that directions may kindly be issued to
respondent authorities for deciding Annexure P/3 dated 23.06.2025. If
such directions are issued, the grievance of the petitioner would be
redressed.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has no
objection if such directions are issued.
5. Looking to the controversy involved in the matter and after
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:15832
3 WP-28756-2025
hearing both the parties, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present
petition with the direction the respondent authorities to decide Annexure
P/3 dated 23.06.2025 within a period of three working days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is hereby
disposed of.
CC as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
