Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yawar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2018
(1)
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.8408/2018
Jabalpur; Dated: 18.05.2018
Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, learned G.A. for the State.
Mr. N.N. Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
Mr. Tripathi pressed I.A. No.4540/2018, application for vacation of stay.
Mr. Tripathi by placing reliance on 1992 (1) SCC 168, [Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India & others] contended that petitioner has no locus to challenge the impugned order. Reliance is also placed on order dated 19.04.2018, passed by this Court in W.P. No.7913/2018 [Suryavanshi Mishra vs. State of M.P.].
Per-contra, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on order dated 07.05.2018, passed by this Court in M.P. No.1227/2017 [Praveen Chourasiya vs. State of M.P. & others] and contended that the judgments on which private respondent is placing reliance are based on Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act which are relating to grant of regular permit, whereas the question involved in the present case is different. He placed heavy reliance on a passage in the case of Praveen Chourasiya (supra), which reads as under:
"Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union of India and others etc.(1992) 1 SCC 168, The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N. Teekappa Gowda and Bros and others AIR 1971 SC 246, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others AIR 1976 SC 578, the order dated 30th June, 2015 passed in WP No.9845/2014 in the matter of Dilip Manglani Vs. State of MP and 22nd November, 2017 passed in WP No.12662/2017 in the matter of Ravindra Nath Tripathi Vs. State of MP and another, but these judgments mainly relate to the right of the operator to file objection, but counsel for (2) petitioner has failed to point out from any of these judgments that the issue relating to locus to file revision U/s 90 has been settled in his favour by these judgments.
So far as the issue of spare vehicle is concerned, counsel for petitioner had advanced an argument before the STAT that on 9/6/2016 ie. on the date of filing of the application before the RTA, the vehicle should be spare vehicle. The STAT has examined the matter factually and legally and has found that the hearing of the application took place on 8/8/2016 and on the date of consideration of the application, the vehicle in question was not spare, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for the permit for that vehicle. The fact that on the date of hearing of the application the vehicle was not a spare is not in dispute, but the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the relevant date is date of filing of the application and not the date of consideration of the application. "
A plain reading of aforesaid passage shows that after considering the judgment of Mithilesh Garg (supra) this Court opined that the question of locus to file revision under Section 90 was not settled in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra). Admittedly, the revisional authority at present is not functional. Thus, it cannot be said that present petition is not maintainable. The time of root is also not such which can be a reason for vacation of stay. Thus, the application for vacation of stay is rejected.
List this matter for further consideration after summer vacation.
C.C. as per rules.
(Sujoy Paul) Judge s@if Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2018.05.18 18:27:24 +05'30'