Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Mohd. Akram Mansuri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 April, 2017

                                            :: 1 ::


                            Writ Petition No.20003/2016




4.4.2017.
                  Shri Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned counsel for petitioner.
                  Shri Vikram Johri, Panel Lawyer for the respondents No.1 to

3-State of M.P. and its functionaires.

Shri Gulab Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Petitioner, by way of present petition, seeks following reliefs :-

(i) to direct respondents No.1 to 3 for taking immediate action against the application dated 7.10.2016 submitted before respondent No.3.

(ii) to direct respondent No.4 for returning the vehicle bearing Registration No.MP-20-HB-4209 and No Objection Certificate (NoC) of all the three vehicles bearing Registration No.MP-20-HB-4209, MP- 20-HB-4214 and MP-20-HB-4207.

As regard relief no.(i) i.e. direction to respondents No.1 to 3 for taking immediate action against the application dated 7.10.2016 submitted before respondent No.3, this Court is of the considered opinion in view of the law laid down in Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 SCC 409, Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542 and Kunga Nima Lepcha v. State of Sikkim AIR 2010 SC 1671 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016) 6 SCC 277, that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 154 of the :: 2 ::

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, he is relegated to avail the same.

As regard relief no.(ii) i.e. direction to respondent No.4 for returning the vehicle bearing Registration No.MP-20-HB-4209 and No Objection Certificate (NoC) of all the three vehicles bearing Registration No.MP-20-HB-4209, MP-20-HB-4214 and MP-20-HB- 4207, it is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that being not a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no mandamus can be issued.

Respondents have relied upon the decision in K.K. Saksena vs International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015) 4 SCC 670 wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold :

"47. In the present case, though we have held that ICID is not discharging any public duty, even otherwise, it is clear that the impugned action does not involve public law element and no 'public law rights' have accrued in favour of the appellant which are infringed The service conditions of the appellant are not governed in the same manner as was the position in Anadi Mukta Sadguru (supra)."

In view whereof, since no relief can be granted, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.

                                                  (SANJAY YADAV)
vinod                                                 JUDGE