Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 6 May, 2015
1
WP. No. 2500/2015
06.05.2015
Shri N.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Shri R.D.
Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.P. Rathi, Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
1. Heard.
2. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of process fee within a period of three working days, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Court.
3. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.
4. Learned counsel for the rival parties are also heard on interim relief.
5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the order impugned Annexure P/1 dated 17.04.2015 passed by the STA contends that the order impugned to the extent it postpones the meeting from 19.01.2015 to 07.05.2015 for consideration the applications for permits qua different routes is against the scheme of the New Act, 2 WP. No. 2500/2015 1988. It is contended that though under the liberalized scheme of the Act, 1988 all applications filed even on the date when the meeting is held by STA for consideration are required to be taken into account but the said scheme of the Act while contemplating thus presumes that the meeting as and when scheduled shall be held would be on the date fixed and would not be adjourned. It is submitted that adjourning the date of meeting for consideration of applications for Inter State Regular Permit would mean permitting fresh applicants to file new applications with new and better claims than the applicants like the petitioner whose applications were ripe for hearing on the first scheduled meeting of the STA i.e. 19.01.2015.
5.2 It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if there is an adjournment of the originally scheduled meeting dated 19.01.2015 then the adjourned meeting of 07.05.2015 ought to be nothing except a review meeting of 19.01.2015 considering the claims as filed and pending on 3 WP. No. 2500/2015 19.01.2015.
5.3 It is further submitted by the petitioner that adjourning the date for consideration of applications by the STA ought not to be permitted though the same is not prohibited under the Act, as it would be an endless process.
5.4 Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of this Court in the case of M.P.S.R.T. Corporation Vs. Regional Transport Authority and Ors. reported in AIR 1968 M.P. 116; Bhojraj Chauksey Vs. R.T.A. Jabalpur & Ors. reported in (1962 MPLJ (N) 35); Bipatlal Vs. R.T.A. Jabalpur & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 M.P.
209. 6.1 On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents/State placed reliance upon a decision of the Single Bench of this Court passed in case of Pawan Arora Vs. State of M.P. & other in Writ Petition No. 8077/2014 and other similar petitions are decided by common order dated 12.01.2015 with further reliance upon the scheme of the Act, 1988.
4 WP. No. 2500/2015The State counsel contends that the STA is obliged under the law to decide all the applications of any kind filed at any time as provided in Section 80 of the Act, 1988. It is submitted that providing of a cut off date for consideration on the applications for grant of permit under Section 80 of the Act, 1988 shall be dehors the provisions of the Act. Paragrahps 13 and 14 of the above said decision in the case of Pawan Arora (supra) has been specifically brought to the notice of this Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/State that if fresh claims filed between 19.01.2015 and 07.05.2015 are not permitted to be entertained then the scheme of the Act shall be violated to the extent that State would be deprived of higher revenue, enlarged field of consideration and right to choose the best candidate.
7. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the rival parties at the stage of admission and perusing the scheme of the Act and Rules framed thereunder for the State of M.P. it is evident that the liberalized scheme under the new Act of 1988 permits 5 WP. No. 2500/2015 fresh claims to be filed till the date of consideration i.e the date of holding of the meeting of the STA.
8. Decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner M.P.S.R.T. Corporation, Bhojraj Chauksey and Bipatlal (supra) are of little assistance to the petitioner since it relates to the 1939, Act and not to the 1988, Act whereby the scheme of things are different.
9. However the glaring aspect which comes to the light in the present case is that none of these decisions contemplate a situation of hand where the STA fixes the date of 19.01.2015 for consideration of applications filed till that date and then adjourns the same by the impugned orders to a date (07.05.2015) which is about four months thereafter.
10. The question that prima-facie may arise in the present case is that whether STA was empowered to adjourn meeting for 07.05.2015 to consider the claims as on 19.01.2015 or even those new claims which have been allowed to be filed till 07.05.2015.
11. On prima-facie plain reading of the scheme of 6 WP. No. 2500/2015 the 1988 Act indicates that none of the provisions empower the STA to adjourn the date of meeting for consideration of applications for grant of permit under Section 80 of the 1988 Act or under the Rules framed thereunder.
12. Undeniably the power of adjournment of meeting is available inherently with the STA since it is not prohibited by the 1988 Act or Rules framed thereunder. However in case adjournment appears to be made for untenable reasons to favour a select few, then the same renders susceptible to judicial review for failing the test of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
13. Considering the contention of the learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the record and the statutory provisions, this Court is of the considered view that the STA on 07.05.2015 should first consider the claims pertaining to those routes of the petitioner which are complete and where applications were filed till 19.01.2015.
14. In view of the above, as an interim measure, 7 WP. No. 2500/2015 this Court directs the STA to consider on 07.05.2015 only those applications which were ripe for being considered in respect of the routes for which they filed till 19.01.2015.
15. List the case in the opening week after summer vacation.
16. List alongwith W.P. No. 2451/2015, W.P. No. 2441, W.P. No. 2452/2015, W.P. No. 2442/2015, W.P. No. 2499/2015, W.P. No. 2522/2015 and W.P. No. 2466/2015 Certified copy as per rules.
(Sheel Nagu)
Vineet Judge/-