Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 15880
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
Sohrab Patel – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 9149/2024
Himanshu Sharma,Advocate General
Existing operators do not have a statutory right to object to the granting of temporary permits under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 71 and 72 - Temporary permit granted for transport route - No statutory right for existing operators to object to temporary permits as per Motor Vehicles Act - Court agrees with previous findings that existing operators' rights are not prejudiced. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
(B) Judicial Precedent - The court affirms the principle that existing operators do not have a right to be heard regarding temporary permits, as established in Sattar Khan Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petition challenges the order granting a temporary permit for a transport route, asserting that existing operators should have the right to object.
Findings of Court:
The court finds no illegality in the order granting the temporary permit, agreeing with the previous ruling that existing operators' rights are not affected.
Issues: The main issue was whether existing operators have a right to object to the granting of temporary permits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for objections from existing operators regarding temporary permits, thus affirming the legality of the permit granted.
Result: Petition dismissed.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 23.2.2024 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the temporary permit granted to the respondent no.3 for the route from Indore to Aaron via Dewas, Maksi, Shahapur, Sarangpur, Pachore, Bhayvara, Beenaganj, Khatkiya , Janjali Sadra, Ruthyagi and Guna including one return trip. The temporary permit is authorized to be valid from 1.3.2024 to 30.4.2024. 2. At the outset learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed in the light of the order passed in the case of Sattar Khan Vs. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and others, 2020 (4) MPLJ 208 .
3. Perused the order.
4. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Sattar Khan (supra) in para 5 had held as under:
5. So far as opportunity of hearing to the objectors is concerned, In the Motor Vehicles Act , there is no provision for giving opportunity of hearing to the objectors while granting temporary permit.
Section 72 of Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of Stage Carriage Permit by the RTA subject to the provisions of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The detailed procedure is prescribed in Section 71 of the Act for consideration of applications received for grant of Stage Carriage Permit. In entire Section 71, there is no provision for calling or inviting objections from the existing transporters. Therefore, under the Motor Vehicle Act, there is no statutory right available to the existing operators to submit an objection for grant of temporary permit. In the case of Mithilesh Garg V/s. Union of India : (1992) 1 SCC 168 and judgments passed by this Court in the case of Chenram Jain V/s. STAT ( M.P. No.730/1993 ); Madan Lal Chhabra V/s.
STAT ( M.P. No.969/1993 ); MPSRTC V/s. STAT : 1994 (1) MPWN Note 16 ; and MPSRTC V/s. RTA :
1973 MPLJ 969 , it has been held that under the Motor Vehicle Acct, number of permits can be granted by the RTA and it is not violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the right of the existing operators is not prejudiced by the temporary permit to be granted by the RTA. Thus, this petition is not tenable
5. This court is in full agreement with findings arrived by the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid matter, thus, in the light of the order dated 9.3.2020 passed in W.P.No.6889/2020 (Sattar Khan Vs. the Secretary Regional Transport Authority and others, 2020 (4) MPLJ 208 ), this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned dated 23.2.2024 (Annexure P/1). 6. Accordingly, the present petition sans merits is hereby dismissed.
