Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. Golden Travels Thr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 December, 2016
1
W.P. No.9027/2016
26.12.2016
Shri K.L. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri R.D.
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Heard on admission as well as I.A. No.8369/2016, an application of hearing in vacation and I.A. No.8368/2016, an application for stay.
Issue notices to the respondents on admission as well as on I.A., on payment of process fee within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. Notices be made returnable within four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that while deciding the issue in regard to grant of temporary permit in favour of the respondent No.3, the STA as well as STAT failed to take into account that the very application seeking temporary injunction described the route by merely mentioning the starting station (Mandsaur) and the terminating station (Indore) without specifying which rout among the four routes notified. It is submitted that it is not for the authority to take upon itself the task of choosing a particular route in the absence of any specified by the petitioner. To that extent the orders of STA as well as STAT are alleged to suffer from the illegality. It is submitted that the STA & STAT have travelled beyond their jurisdiction set by law.
Meanwhile, the effect and operation of the impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/7 dated 5.12.2016 and 28.11.2016 respectively, shall remain stayed till next date of hearing (Sheel Nagu) (S.K. Awasthi) Judge Judge SS/APC