[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devjeet Singh Siddhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-35596-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 20th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 16168 of 2023
SHAILESH SHIVHARE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashish Rawat - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1992 of 2024
VIJAY BAJAJ
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashi Kant Bajpai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6573 of 2024
KARAN TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B. K. Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 40262 of 2024
PRAYAG TRAVELS BUS SERVICE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:25:22
2 WP-35596-2025
Appearance:
Shri Komal Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 41047 of 2024
M/S TIWARI TRADERS AND TRANSPORT
Versus
THE STATE OF MP AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brajesh Kumar Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 28419 of 2025
M.K. ROADWAYAS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Komal Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 26470 of 2023
M/S R J FOUZDAR BUS SERVICE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rahul Rawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 2057 of 2024
SUNIL JAISWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Komal Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:25:22
3 WP-35596-2025
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 2487 of 2024
SHEIKH NAVED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Komal Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 6574 of 2024
MADAN LAL CHHABDA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri B. K. Dubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 26126 of 2024
NAFEES TRANSPORT SERVICE AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri S. K. Bajpai - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
WRIT PETITION No. 22219 of 2025
MAZID KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Komal Patel - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
WRIT PETITION No. 35596 of 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: JITENDRA
KUMAR PAROUHA
Signing time: 20-02-2026
19:25:22
4 WP-35596-2025
DEVJEET SINGH SIDDHU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashikant Bajpai - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Vineet Singh - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State.
ORDER
It is pointed out by the parties that the issue involved in the present
case is covered by an order passed by this Court in the case of M/s RJ
Fouzdar Bus Service & others vs State of M.P. & others : WP No. 19798 of
2025 which has been disposed of on 18.08.2025 in the following terms :
5. It is not disputed that the petitioners have
challenged the grant of regular stage carriage permit to
the respondent No.4. The petitioners are having a
remedy to challenge the same by filing a revision before
the competent authority in terms of Section 90 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Sheikh Mohd. Anees (supra) had an occasion to deal
with the similar proposition. The question which
cropped up the consideration before the Division Bench
were as as under:
"(i) Whether the appellants/writ petitioners are entitled
to get an opportunity of being heard before granting
permit to a third party under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 [for brevity 'the Act'] ?
(ii) Whether the respondent No.4 was authorized to act
in the capacity of Regional Transport Authority under
the provisions of Section 68 of the Act ?
(iii) Whether the appellants have any locus standi to
question promotion of the respondent No.4 on the post
of Divisional Deputy Transport Commissioner in a writ
petition assailing grant of permit without seeking a writ
of quo warranto ?"
6(a). Answers of the aforesaid questions were given as
under:
"(i) The existing operators of a route are not entitled for
hearing before the Regional Transport Authority, while
consideration of grant of stage carriage permits to fresh
applicants under Section 70, 71, 72 and 80 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
(ii) The Authority who has been notified as Regional
5 WP-35596-2025
Transport Authority by a notification in Official Gazette
under Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Motor
Vehicles Act is competent to exercise and discharge the
powers and functions specified in Section 68(30 of the
Act.
(iii) The promotion of an officer cannot be challenged
in a writ petition filed by bus operators challenging
grant of stage carriage permits in absence of any relief
of a writ of quo warranto."
6 (b). While dismissing the writ appeals, the Division
Bench has observed as under:
"8. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that
the writ petitioners/appellants had no right to be heard.
If they were aggrieved they could have challenged the
same in a revision under Section 90 of the Act, but they
had directly approached this Court to invoke writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India."
7. Thus, in view of the observations made by the
Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case, as
the petitioners are having a right to file a revision
against the order impugned, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to entertain the petition. Accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed.
8. However, the petitioners are at liberty to challenge
the grant of regular stage-carriage permit to the
respondent No.4 by filing a revision. If a revision is
filed by the petitioners, time-period lapsed in
prosecuting the present writ petition will not come in
the way of the revisional authority to deal with the
revision and the same be considered on merits without
being influenced by any of the observations made by
this Court in this order.
2. In view whereof, it is directed that the directions/observations
issued in the case of M/s RJ Fouzdar Bus Service & others vs State of M.P.
& others : WP No. 19798 of 2025 decided on 18.08.2025 shall apply mutatis
mutandis to the facts of the present case.
3. In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of finally. No order
as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
6 WP-35596-2025
JUDGE
JP
