Madhya Pradesh High Court
A.K.R.L. Logistic Pvt Ltd. vs Madhya Pradesh State Civil Supply ... on 25 April, 2017
1
W.P.No.5729/2017
25/4/2017
Shri Vipin Yadav,learned counsel for petitioner.
Heard on admission.
Respondents Madhya Pradesh State Civil
Supply Corporation is a body Corporate engaged in supply and transportation of food grains and other material to various outlets under Public Distribution System outsourced the supply work to transport operator through competitive bidding and in order to ensure that the transport abide by various statutory provisions incorporate them in the term and condition in NITS and the agreement entered thereupon. One such condition which it stipulates in the term of contract is that no overloading is permissible and in case of over loading the transporters shall not be entitled for the payment in lieu of overloaded material. That instruction to abide by said term are issued from time to time to remind the stipulation regarding overloading. That one such letter is dated 23.1.2017 filed as Annexure P/2. That in furtherance to the letter dated 23.1.2017 another communication is issued reminding various stake holder at District 2 level and Regional level that in case the overloading is noticed to impose penalty with direction to the transporter to deposit the same with the Regional Transport Authority.
It is this communication which is the cause for filing of this petition by the petitioner who though has chosen not to disclose his antecedent in the petition, but it is gathered from Annexure P/6, the representation that they were earlier doing collection of Rabi and Khariff crop for Panna/ Pawai Sector in previous but are not allotted the work for the current financial year.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned communication dated 21.3.2017 has diluted the clause which prohibits overloading.
The communication which the petitioner takes exception of is in following terms:
mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djsaA tSlk fd vkidks fofnr gS fd vkosj yksfMax ij isukYVh vf/kjksfir djus dk vf/kdkj eksVj;ku vf/kfu;e varxZr dsoy ifjogu foHkkx dks iznRr gSA vr% vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ifjogudrkZ }kjk fd;s x;s vkosj yksfMax ifjogu dk;Z ij isukYVh vf/kjksfir djus gsrq foLr`r tkudkjh ftys ds {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh dks nsa ,oa ifjogudrkZ dks lwfpr djs fd og fu;ekuqlkj 3 vksoj yksfMax dh isukYVh jkf'k {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh dk;kZy; esa tek djsaA tek djus ds mijkar pkyku dh izfr ifjogu ns;d ds lkFk layXu dj vafre ns;d Hkqxrku gsrq ftyk dk;kZy; esa izLrqr dh tk,A When a query is put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the impugned communication dilutes the clause preventing overloading the transport vehicle, he is at complete loss to give even a single good reasons.
The petitioner even fails to establish as to how the impugned communication is in violation to the decision by the Supreme Court in Paramjit Bhasin and others V. Union of India and others:2005(12) SCC 642.
Taking overall view of the pleadings and the contention by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the relief sought is misconceived as would merit any consideration.
Consequently petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE das