Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandeep Singh Bhatia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 May, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1
Writ Petition No.11448/2018
(Mandeep Singh Bhatia Vs. State of M.P. and Others)
Gwalior, Dated; 18/05/2018
Shri R.D. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, for
the respondents-State.
This order shall govern the disposal of W.P. No.9529/2018, W.P. No.10396/2018 and W.P. No.11448/2018. For convenience sake, facts of W.P. No.9894/2018 are taken up for consideration.
Present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-Bus Operator seeking direction to the State of Maharastra Transport Department and Secretary State Transport Authority, Mumbai for granting counter-signature of temporary permit No.56/STA/2018 to be plied over route Khandwa to Bhusaval (inter-state) (for single trip daily).
Notices were issued to the respondents on last date of hearing and matter was placed today. It appears that in the instant case as well as in the other identical cases, an objection was raised on behalf of the respondents-State that in SLP No.7763/2015 (Pankaj Pandey and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Other), the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed a stay order wherein the State of Madhya Pradesh is restrain to issue any new inter-state permit or counter signing any new inter-state permit without permission of the Court therefore, no order can be passed for directing the respondent either to issue new permit or to counter sign any permit for plying the vehicle.
The matter was placed today, in which explanation was sought from the respondents.
According to counsel for the petitioners appearing in different petitions, case of Pankaj Pandy (supra) arose out of a Public Interest Litigation preferred by one Kashmiri Lal Batra in which issuance of temporary permit by the State of M.P. was challenged. The said case is reported in 2014 (IV) MPJR 190, Kashmiri Lal THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 Writ Petition No.11448/2018 (Mandeep Singh Bhatia Vs. State of M.P. and Others) Batra Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. It appears that the said case was in respect of de-notification of the routes by the State of M.P. which was reserved earlier for State Transport Corporation and the permit for said routes were given to the private operators which was objected by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Division Bench of this Court after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that the State of M.P. is competent to issue the permit to the private operators for those routes and trips which are de- notified earlier, in accordance with the reciprocal agreement and the State of Uttar Pradesh is bound to counter sign such permits.
The said order of Division Bench was challenged by the Pankaj Pandey in SLP as referred above.
In the said factual back drop wherein question of honouring the reciprocal agreement inter-se between State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was under consideration therefore, the Apex Court granted interim direction in respect of reciprocal agreement inter-se between two States. In the present case, the reciprocal agreement is between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra and has nothing to do with reciprocal agreement and its implications vis a vis State of Uttar Pradesh therefore, the said interim order is not applicable in the case where counter-signature is to be made by the State of Maharastra.
Even otherwise, State of Maharastra has never raised such objection in respect of de-notified routes and reciprocal agreement between two States is honoured regularly.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State in the first round was directed to seek instructions from the appropriate authority, whether after the interim order dated 14-12-2017 passed by the Apex Court in SLP No.7763/2015, any permanent permit/ temporary permit or counter signature have been made in respect of vehicles plying between State of M.P. and Maharastra for which THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 Writ Petition No.11448/2018 (Mandeep Singh Bhatia Vs. State of M.P. and Others) learned Additional Advocate General sought time and prayed for placing the matter in second round.
In the second round, learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of telephonic instructions received from the Secretary of the State Transport Authority-Mr. R.K. Jain, submits that the State of M.P. is regularly giving temporary permits to the vehicles plying between State of M.P. and Maharastra and counter-signing the said permits, if any (temporary or permanent), is given to the State of Maharastra. Therefore, according to the Secretary State Transport Authority, there is no bar in respect of permit and counter-signature between State of M.P. and Maharastra in any manner.
Learned Additional Advocate General also referred the minutes of the meeting held on 06-04-2018 regarding reciprocal agreement between State of Maharastra and M.P. wherein representatives of both the States were present and after due deliberation they agreed upon for early facilitation of issuance of reciprocal transport agreement therefore, submissions of the respondents is that the said interim order was confined to the State of Uttar Pradesh only and not to the other State.
Heard.
Considering the submissions, it is apparent that the said interim order passed by the Apex Court itself is given effect to by the respondents in respect of State of U.P. only and they are regularly giving permits (although temporary permits only) and counter-signing the permits between the State of Maharastra and M.P. therefore, on the basis of their own submissions, respondents cannot restrain the petitioner in any manner for seeking relief of counter-signature from the State of Maharastra.
From perusal of fact situation as well as petition memo, it appears that as per reciprocal agreement dated 01-03-2007 executed between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 Writ Petition No.11448/2018 (Mandeep Singh Bhatia Vs. State of M.P. and Others) it is apparent that both the States would respect reciprocal agreement/temporary permit given for plying vehicles between two States. Here, in the present case, State of Madhya Pradesh and its appropriate authority (State Transport Authority) has issued temporary permit on 03/05/2018 vide permit No.56/STA/18 for plying the vehicle No. MP 09 FA 2417 of the petitioner for the period from 04/05/2018 to 31/08/2018 from Khandwa to Bhusaval. In absence of counter signature from the State of Maharashtra petitioner is finding hard to ply vehicle between said destinations. Considering the fact situation, it further appears that it is procedural formality which has to be performed by State of Maharashtra, if petitioner comply all other terms and conditions as contained into reciprocal agreement as well as in granting temporary permit. Therefore, instead of pending the petition, this Court deems fit to dispose of this petition with the direction to State of Maharashtra to consider the case of petitioner as per terms and conditions of reciprocal agreement dated 01-03-2007 and if petitioner fulfills all the condition then counter signature be made immediately within 7 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order so that petitioner if fulfills all the conditions may ply the vehicle between two destinations as referred above and her right to pursue business/occupation as enshrined under Article 19 of Constitution of India would not be hindered in any manner.
As an interim arrangement, petitioner shall be allowed to ply her vehicle in accordance with the terms and conditions of permit and the said vehicle shall not be stopped on the ground of non counter signature of State of Maharashtra over the temporary permit granted to the petitioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the point that STA is not granting permanent permit and only adopting adhoc measure of temporary permits which causes THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 5 Writ Petition No.11448/2018 (Mandeep Singh Bhatia Vs. State of M.P. and Others) inconvenience and uncertainty to the bus operator.
Since this is a matter to be decided by the STA and its members, but it is certainly expected from the STA that the decision regarding issuance of permanent permit would be sorted out by them in a pro-active manner on positive and affirmative note so that the meetings for grant of permanent permit may not defer and meetings may take place as per their schedule.
With the aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc VARSHA CHATURVEDI 2018.05.21 14:18:45
-07'00'