Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Trivedi Bus Service Through ... vs Transport Department on 26 August, 2019
Author: S.C.Sharma
Bench: S.C.Sharma
1 WP-14117-2019
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-14117-2019
(M/S TRIVEDI BUS SERVICE THROUGH YOGENDRA TRIVEDI Vs TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT)
4
Indore, Dated : 26-08-2019
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Shri Arjun
Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. Dhanodkar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri B.S. Gandhi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without there being any provision for review, the order dated 03.06.2019 which has been passed, amounts to review only.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent no.3 submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on 16.11.2017 and in the application the timings mentioned for grant of stage carriage permit for departure was 6:47 and arrival was 11:17. The order of the Regional Transport Authority reveals that all other permits were looked into and the matter was verified on the computer and thereafter he has granted permit in respect of the route in question, the timings mentioned in order dated 16.11.2017 are, 5:20 departure from Indore and 9:10 arrival at Mahidpur. Thereafter, an application was preferred for change of timings by respondent no.3 and the application was rejected by an order dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure P/5). The third application was preferred and now wisdom has prevailed upon the regional transport authority. He has allowed the application by order dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P/8) and the timings in respect to the permit are now modified as 6:47am as departure and 11:17 as arrival at Mahidpur, meaning thereby that the initial application was rejected earlier in respect of the aforesaid timings. The second application for modification of the timings was 2 WP-14117-2019 rejected, and thereafter now the order has been reviewed by passing the impugned order.
Learned senior counsel Shri Agrawal has drawn the attention of this Court towards the statutory provision of law to contend that there is no provision of review and once an order has been passed without jurisdiction, this Court is jurisdictionally competent to entertain a writ petition even though there is an alternative remedy. In the case of Kala Bharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437, this Court has dealt with the issue of review. Para 12 to 14 of this judgment reads as under:
"12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction. (vide: Patel Chunibhai Dajibha v. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar & Anr., AIR 1965 SC 1457; and Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 641).
13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273; Maj. Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 1814; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidhyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2186; State of Orissa & Ors. v. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack & Ors., (1998) 7 SCC 162; and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 705, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must
3 WP-14117-2019 be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in absence of any statutory provision for the same is nullity being without jurisdiction.
14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/ modification/correction is not permissible.
Case dismissed/withdrawn- effect on interim relief:"
In light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that Regional Transport Authority could not have passed the impugned order.
Resultantly, the operation of impunged order shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. The detailed reply be filed by the respondent/State in the matter and the Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain shall also file an affidavit stating the provisions under which the impugned order has been passed.
List on 04.11.2019.
(S.C.SHARMA) JUDGE Vibha Vibha Pachori 2019.08.29 11:06:58 +05'30'