Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. Golden Travels Thr vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 January, 2017
M/s Golden Travels v. The State of M.P. and Ors.
WP.9027.2016
02/1/2017
Shri H.D. Gupta Sr. Advocate with Shri R.D. Sharma,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.
1/State.
Shri Arvind Dudawat, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
1. The present petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India assails the final order dated 21.12.2016 passed in revisional jurisdiction by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT for brevity) dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.11. 2016 vide P-7 of the State Transport Authority (STA for brevity) by which temporary permit till 31.12. 2016 was issued in favour of respondent no.3 herein for the rout Mansor to Indore.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.
3. This court while entertaining this petition by interim order dated 26.12. 2016 had stayed the operation of the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-7.
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for respondent informs this court that temporary permit issued in favour of respondent no. 3 which is the subject matter of challenge herein, has expired on 31.12. 2016. In this changed circumstances learned counsel for respondent contends that issue involved herein has become infructuous.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand contends that other connected issues are involved which require adjudication. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the issue of wrong practice on the part of the STA to repeatedly take recourse to the measure of temporary permits instead of regular permits needs to be deprecated by a judicial order as has been M/s Golden Travels v. The State of M.P. and Ors.
WP.9027.2016 done by the Single Bench of this court in W.P. No. 7518/2016 (M/s District Transport Service v. The State of M.P.) decided on 27.10. 2016.
6. A bare perusal of the ground clause in the petition right from para 6.1 to 6.7 does not reveal that any such ground which is being canvassed today by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner, was ever raised in the petition.
7. The challenge in the instant present petition is confined to the order of grant of temporary permit in favour of the private respondent on the sole ground of the same being nonspeaking and that the application for temporary permit of the private respondent was wanting in material particulars in as much as failing to mention the particular rout from amongst the four available routs between the starting point at Mansore and terminating point at Indore.
8. In view of the above, this court is of the view that indulging into any exercise of adjudication in the changed circumstance of the impugned temporary permit having lost it's validity and efficacy, would be an academic exercise in futility.
9. This court thus declines to enter into the adjudicatory process.
10. In view of the above, this court declines interference on merits and dismisses this petition as having become infructuous.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
ar