IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

ON THE 20^th OF MARCH, 2023

WRIT PETITION No. 6318 of 2023

BETWEEN:-

SATISH KUMAR PALIWAL S/O SHRI RAM CHANDRA

PALIWALI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS

OPERATOR VILLAGE SOYAT KALA TEHSIL SUSNER

AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER

(BY SHRI N.K.GUPTA - SR.ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SHAILENDRA SINGH -

ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY,

TRANSPORT

DEPTT.

VALLABH

BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.

THE SECRETARY STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

HURAWALI GWALIOR, (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI JITESH SHARMA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the

following:

ORDER

Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

preferred against inaction on the part of respondents whereby, they are not

considering the application (Annexure P/1) filed by the petitioner for grant of

temporary permit on the interstate route Bhawnimandi to Indore for the period

from 01.02.2023 to 31.05.2023 on the basis of the notification dated 27.12.2022

by which, the relaxation granted under Rule 77(1-b) vide notification dated

1

28.12.2015 has been amended and substituted and the notification dated

24.11.2010 had been revived and will apply and the vehicle older than 10 years

cannot operate/ply.

Learned Sr.counsel Shri N.K.Gupta submitted that as per the amended

notification dated 27.12.2022, notification dated 24.11.2010 has been made

applicable whereby, as per Clause (1-a) (i), no stage carriage permit shall be

granted an interstate route permit to a vehicle which has completed ten years

from the manufacturing year, meaning thereby that the vehicles older than ten

years from the date of their manufacture will not be permitted to ply. He further

submits that as per registration certificate Annexure P/2, the vehicle herein in the

present case is having manufacturing date as 19.08.2013 therefore will complete

ten years in the month of August, 2023 only, hence, non consideration of the

application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary interstate permit is not

proper. The respondent authorities are bound to grant interstate permit to the

petitioner but since they are sitting tight over the matter and not deciding the

application filed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner made a

limited prayer that if the respondent authorities are directed to consider the

application Annexure P/1 filed by the petitioner and take a plausible view

keeping in mind the notifications dated 24.11.2010, 28.12.2015 and 27.12.2022

in right perspective, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submitted that he

has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by counsel for the petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After going through the record and the averments made by learned

Sr.counsel, it appears that the respondents who are not deciding the application

(Annexure P/1) filed by the petitioner and are sitting tight over the matter, is

2

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

JUDGE

causing prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this

Court deems it fit to direct the respondent authorities to consider and decide the

application (Annexure P/1) filed by the petitioner for granting temporary

interstate route permit keeping in view the notification dated 24.11.2010.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed off.

Rks

3

RAM KUMAR SHARMA

2023.03.21 11:03:29

+05'30'