Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S District Transport Service Betul ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 26 May, 2016
1 WP. No.3001/2016
26.05.2016
Shri N.K. Gupta Sr. Advocate with Shri R.D. Agarwal
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Niwaskar Govt. Advocate for
Respondent/State.
Shri Prashant Sharma and Sahilendra Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
Heard on I.A. No. 3024/16 and 3154/16 which are applications for urgent hearing during summer vacation.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I.A. No. 3024/16 and 3154/16 are allowed.
Heard on I.A. No. 2845/16 which is an application for vacating stay.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submitted that respondent no.3 had applied for temporary permit with effect from 13.2. 2016 to 31.5. 2016 on Betul-Nagpur route whereas the petitioner had applied for grant of temporary period for a period from 15.1. 2016 till 30.4. 2016. It is further submitted that for the period from 1. 5. 2016 to 31.5. 2016, no application was filed by the petitioner and therefore he had no locus to raise the objection. It is also submitted that permit was also issued to respondent no. 3 on 9.2.2016 pursuant to which the respondent no. 3 started plying the vehicle in question.
However it is fairly submitted by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that the tax was deposited by him after issuance of permit in March, 2016. It is further submitted that in case ad-interim order dated 3. 5. 2016 is not vacated, public in general would suffer great inconvenience.
On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the proceedings before RTA 2 WP. No.3001/2016 for issuance of fresh permit w.e.f 1. 6. 2016 is pending consideration. It is further submitted that writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to Secretary, RTA to decide the application independently without being influenced by the order passed by it. It is further submitted that since as per the provisions of Rule 72 (3) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, respondent no. 3 is not entitled to ply the vehicle in question.
In support of the aforesaid, reliance has been placed on the decision of Division Bench of this court in the case of Kishan v. State of M.P and Ors., 2008 (I) MPJR 87 and Mohammad Safique v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors., 2014 (3) MPLJ 478.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of order dated 9.2.2016, it is evident that permit is to be issued only subject to payment of tax. Admittedly the respondent no. 3 has deposited arrears of tax in the month March, 2016. Though there may be violation of provisions of Sec. 72 (3) (d) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, however, the fact remains that matter pertains to grant of temporary permit and continuance of ad-interim order dated 3. 5. 2016 would amount to allowing the petition itself. Therefore, taking into account the inconvenience which may be caused to the public in general on account of non-plying of the vehicle in question, the ad-interim order dated 3. 5. 2016 is vacated.
Needless to state that Secretary, RTA shall decide the issue with regard to grant of temporary permit w.e.f. 1.6. 2016 independently without being influenced by the observations contained either in this order or in the order 3 WP. No.3001/2016 dated 3. 5. 2016.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2845/16 is allowed. CC as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Vacation Judge ar