Madhya Pradesh High Court
I.S.B.T. Bus Operator Associaiion ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-1176-2018
(I.S.B.T. BUS OPERATOR ASSOCIAIION JABALPUR BUS TERMINAL DEEN DAYAL CHOWK JABALPUR
Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 18-01-2018
Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Rawat, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
sh Shri R.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner before this Court is I.S.B.T. Bus Operators e ad Association, Jabalpur, which has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-
"7. Relief Sought :
Pr The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please -
a hy
1. to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure P/6).
ad
2. to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 not to grant further temporary permit to the respondent no.4 on the M route Jabalpur to Dindori as nonstop permit.
3. Any other appropriate orders against respondents be issued in favour of the petitioner with cost of the petition."
of At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he rt is not pressing for the first relief, however, so far as the second relief ou is concerned, his further prayer is that respondent No.3 may be C directed to consider the petitioner's objection for grant of temporary h permit on rout Jabalpur to Dindori as nonstop permit. ig On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has H strongly opposed the prayer and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg V. Union of India and others and has contended that it is within the jurisdiction of respondent No.2 to issue permit on the application filed of any bus operator and as such no illegality has been committed by respondent No.2 in issuing permit to respondent No.4 and no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioners.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court finds that permit issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.4 expires on 31.01.2018 and although against the aforesaid order, remedy of appeal is also available to the petitioner but the petitioner has not resorted to the aforesaid remedy.
Under these circumstances, this petition cannot be entertained on account of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy. However, since the petitioner's alternative prayer is that their representation may be decided by respondent No.2 while granting / extending permit already issued to respondent No.4, the same appears to be reasonable.
Under these circumstances, this petition stands disposed of with sh direction to respondent No.2 to take into account the representation e submitted by the petitioner herein while passing any order on the ad application filed by respondent No.4.
Pr Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. C.C. As per rules.
a hy (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) ad JUDGE M of Vikram rt ou Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2018.01.25 15:49:18 +05'30' C h ig H