Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 847 (MP)

Kishan v. State of M. P.

2007-08-06

DIPAK MISRA, S.R.WAGHMARE

body2007
ORDER Misra, J. -- 1. In this intra-court appeal preferred under section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 the appellant petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has called in question the sustainability of the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 14012/06. 2. The facts which are relevant to be stated are that the appellant submitted an application on 10.9.2005 to the Regional Transport Officer, Sagar for grant of permanent permit for Sagar to Bilahara route (three times in a day) from April, 2005 to July, 2005. The said application was accepted and permanent permit No. 28/05 was granted in his favour on 25.11.2005. The said grant of permit was called in question by respondents 4 and 5 in Revision No. 566/06 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the foundation that the requisite documents as prescribed under Rule 72 (3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for brevity 'the 1994 Rules') were not submitted along with the application. The Tribunal on consideration of the material brought on record came to hold that the appellant was in arrears of penalty and interest payable under the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam (for short 'the Act') and being of this view the Tribunal allowed the revision by the order dated 18.9.2006. 3. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia, that grant of permanant permit in his favour was valid. It was also urged that there was conflict of time which required to be resolved. 4. The respondent No.5 entered contest and put forth that the appellant had committed default in making payment of penalty and interest as provided under the Rules and, therefore, the grant of permanent permit was unjustified. 5. Before the learned single Judge it was contended that the appellant was not in arrears of any kind of penalty and interest under the 1991 Act and the amount that had been paid by the appellant had not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. 5. Before the learned single Judge it was contended that the appellant was not in arrears of any kind of penalty and interest under the 1991 Act and the amount that had been paid by the appellant had not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. It was also the stand before the writ Court that Rule 72 (3) is not mandatory and hence, the grant of permit could not have been legally refused for non-compliance of the said provision and, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in accepting the said stance put forth by the respondent No.5. It was further put forth that the vehicle was seized for a period from 2.2.2005 to 7.4.2005 and hence, no tax was payable during said period. It was also canvassed that outstanding amount as regards penalty and interest could not have been taken into consideration as the appellant had not been served any notice of demand. It was also proponed by the appellant petitioner that arrears apply to case of renewal but not to the fresh case. 6. Countering the submissions of the appellant it was contended by the learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel the respondent No.5 that the Tribunal on scrutiny of the material has found that the appellant was in default in the matter of penalty and interest under the Act and the said finding cannot be reversed in a writ petition unless they are found to be perverse. 7. Learned single Judge adverting to the Rule 72 (3) of the 1994 Rules and section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came to hold that the factum of seizure had not been proved inasmuch as the appellant had not provided information with supporting documents along with the application for grant of permit. Learned single Judge has held that the appellant should have intimated about non-use of the vehicle to the taxation authority. Learned single Judge further held that the appellant had failed to establish that entire tax composition fees and interest was paid at the time of consideration of the application for grant of permit and hence, he was not entitled to the permit though certain entries might not have been taken into consideration. 8. Learned single Judge further held that the appellant had failed to establish that entire tax composition fees and interest was paid at the time of consideration of the application for grant of permit and hence, he was not entitled to the permit though certain entries might not have been taken into consideration. 8. Be it noted that the learned single Judge declined to remit the matter on the ground of the appellant had failed to establish the deposition of entire liability, tax and interest. 9. We have heard Mr. Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.S. Ruprah, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. 10. The singular question that emerges for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct in exercising the revisional jurisdiction in coming to hold that the application submitted by the applicant was not competent and further the affirmation thereof by the learned single Judge is justified in law. Submission of Mr. Verma is that Rule 72 is not mandatory and further certain entries whereby the amount had been deposited had not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and hence, the order is erroneous on the face of it. Mr. Ruprah has submitted that the learned single Judge has scrutinised every facet of the arrears and when there is apposite application of mind to the factul score by the learned single Judge and no error is perceivable in it, the order does not warrant interference in this intra-court appeal. 11. In this context it is apposite to refer to Rule 72 (3) of the 1994 Rules. It reads as under: "72 (3). 11. In this context it is apposite to refer to Rule 72 (3) of the 1994 Rules. It reads as under: "72 (3). The application for stage carriage permit or reserved stage carriage permit as required under sub-section (1) of section 70 shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely: (a) an authentic route map along with certified distance between various stages and certificate regarding motorability of the route from the departments which have control over such road; (b) Certificate from Registering Authority· containing make, model and seating capacity of the vehicles owned by the applicant at the time of making the application; (c) details of the stage carriage and reserved stage carriage permits already held by the applicant; , (d) no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned; (e) declaration duly certified by an officer of the Madhya pradesh State Road Transport Corporation authorised by the Managing Director about the portion and distance of the route covered by any nationalisation scheme; and (f) any other information as may be required by the Transport Authority." 12. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior v. Ram Prasad Purohit and others [200 I (2) JLJ 392 = 2001 (3) MPLJ 339 ] has held that the said rule is not mandatory. Under the Rule a no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned is required to be furnished. It has been held that the said rule is not mandatory. Thus, the learned single Judge has rightly held that it was not essential on the part of the appellant to submit a certificate along with the application for permit. But that does not necessarily mean that the appellant who is in arrears of dues would become entitled for grant of permit. What it means is if the no dues certificate is not accompanied, the application cannot be thrown overboard on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory requirement but when an issue is raised that a candidate is in arrears, the authority concerned is under obligation to scrutinize the same. Regional Transport Officer had not scrutinized the same. In revision the Tribunal scrutinized the same and bestowed consideration. Regional Transport Officer had not scrutinized the same. In revision the Tribunal scrutinized the same and bestowed consideration. Learned Single Judge has referred to Annexure P-7 from which it is noticeable that the appellant was in arrears of dues of taxes, composition fees and interest at the time of consideration of the application. Learned Single Judge has not lent credence to the instance that vehicle was not in use as the relevant documents were not produced before the Tribunal. 13. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, that the order passed by the learned single Judge is absolutely presentable and does not warrant any interference. 14. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.