Madhya Pradesh High Court
State Of National Capital Territory Of ... vs Gurprit Singh on 19 March, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and
another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of
National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another),
R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs.
Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital
Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another),
R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another
Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of
National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah
and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of
Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others )
1
Gwalior
19.3.2018
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for
the petitioners.
Shri R.D. Sharma and Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
There is delay of 183 days in filing these review petitions. Condonation whereof is being sought vide I.A.No.Nos.3872/2017, 3867/2017, 3873/2017, 3875/2017, 3878/2017, 3879/2017 and 3880/2017. Taking into consideration the fact as borne out from the applications which prevented the petitioners from filing the review within limitation, sufficient cause is made out which prevented the petitioners from filing the review petition within a period of limitation.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another), R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another), R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others ) 2 Consequently, delay condoned. Interlocutory applications; Nos.3872/2017, 3867/2017, 3873/2017, 3875/2017, 3878/2017, 3879/2017 and 3880/2017 are disposed of.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matters are finally heard.
Petitioners seek review of common order dated 11.1.2017 passed in batch of Writ Petition Nos.3480/2016, 3482/2016, 3484/2016, 3483/2016, 3661/2016, 2165/2016 and 2166/2016.
The writ petitions were at the instance of
Transport Vehicle Operators against the action of the
authorities of National Capital Territory of Delhi,
whereby they were not counter-signing the inter-state
stage carriage permit issued by the State of Madhya
Pradesh for plying passenger buses in terms of
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another), R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another), R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others ) 3 reciprocal agreement between State of Madhya Pradesh and Delhi Administration.
Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that the National Capital Territory of Delhi despite service of notice has not appeared, disposed of the batch of writ petitions in the following terms:
"(i) the petitioner in each writ petition is set at liberty to submit certified copy of the order passed today before the competent authority and may also file an application afresh, if not already filed, seeking indulgence of the competent authority in the matter of counter signature on inter state stage carriage permit issued to them by State of M.P., by virtue of reciprocal agreement for plying of buses on the route as per agreement, in the light of the counter signature having been already accorded in similar circumstances in respect of number of THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another), R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another), R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others ) 4 inter state stage carriage permit holders;
(ii) on such application being filed, the competent authority of State of National Capital Territory, New Delhi shall bestow conscious consideration and pass necessary orders maintaining parity on the principles of Article 14 read with Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, bearing in mind that the competent authorities of the State of Rajasthan and State of Uttar Pradesh have started counter-signing the inter-state stage carriage permits issued to the buses for plying on the respective routes, as per the reciprocal agreement, and
(iii) aforesaid exercise be completed expeditiously, preferably within fifteen days from the date of submitting certified copy of the order passed today. Till then, interim order, if any, granted shall continue."
Evidently as per the direction no.2 National Capital Territory, New Delhi was called upon to bestow conscious consideration and pass necessary THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another), R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another), R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others ) 5 orders keeping in mind that the competent authorities of the State of Rajasthan and State of Uttar Pradesh have counter-signing the inter-state stage carriage permits issued to the buses for plying on the respective routes as per the reciprocal agreement.
The petitioners in compliance to direction no.2 decided the entitlement of the respective writ petitioners and declined to counter-sign the permit on the ground that the route is not covered in the reciprocal agreement and if counter-signed it will be in contravention to provision of section 88 of Motor Vehciles Act, 1988, on 3.4.2017. Besides passing an order in furtherance to direction in writ petitions, the petitioners have simultaneously filed the present review petitions seeking recalling of the order on the ground that the reciprocal agreement which has been THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another), R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another), R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others ) 6 adverted to in respect of the route from Gwalior to Chandigarh the Delhi Administration is not a party and the route does not include the passage as contemplated under the second proviso to Section 88 (1) of the Act of 1966.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners we are of the considered opinion that since the direction as contained in the order under review was for consideration by the National Capital Territory of Delhi and there was no mandate to the authorities concerned to counter-sign the permit. And in furtherance to direction for consideration present petitioners have considered and declined to counter- sign the permit by its order dated 3.4.2017, we find no good reason to review/recall the order dated 11.1.2017 passed in the batch of writ petitions.
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P.No. No.516/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Smt. Rajni Bhatele and others), R.P.No.515/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Seema Arora and another), R.P.No.517/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Pawan Arora and another), R.P.No.518/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Som Prakash Channana and another), R.P.No.519/2017 (Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Prayag Narayan Bhatele and others), R.P.No.520/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh Kushwah and another) and R.P.No.521/2017 (State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another Vs. Gurprit Singh and others ) 7 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there are three operators who have not come forward with any representation and yet are enjoying the interim protection granted on 11.1.2017. Needless to say, as per the order since the direction was for consideration and the petitioners having considered and rejected the claim the same would follow the sue in respect of the operators who have not represented.
With the above observation, review petitions stand disposed of.
(Sanjay Yadav) (Ashok Kumar Joshi)
Judge Judge
pawar/-
Digitally signed by ASHISH PAWAR
Date: 2018.03.20 10:22:40 +05'30'