Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 384 (MP)

Trivedi Bus Service v. State of M. P.

2013-03-20

J.K.MAHESHWARI, Shantanu Kemkar

body2013
ORDER 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the learned single judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2177/2013. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal may be stated that the appellant/writ petitioner filed the aforesaid petition seeking direction against the respondents to consider and decide its representations (Annexure P/20 and P/21), after undertaking a physical survey of the route Indore to Bhojakhedi in between Alot and Bhojakhedi portion and also in Nageshwar Unhel portion and to redetermine the said formulated route vide order dated 7.4.2011 on the basis of fresh physical survey of the aforesaid portions of the route. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the survey report (Annexure P/7 and P/8) in exercise of the powers contained in section 68(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the aforesaid route was formulated by the State Transport Authority vide order dated 7.4.2011 (Annexure P/9). 4. However, as per the subsequent survey reports available on record (Annexure P/12 and P/13), it was clear that the earlier survey report on the basis of which the order of formulation of route in question was passed, was incorrect and the route is non-motorable and non-existent. 5. Therefore, on the basis of the subsequent survey report, the petitioner submitted representations for making a fresh survey and to redetermine the issue of formulation of the said route. When no decision on the representations was taken, it had to file the writ petition seeking aforesaid directions. 6. But, instead of considering the aforesaid prayer, as was made, learned Single Judge, has upheld the formulation dated 7.4.2011 by observing that the State Transport Authority is empowered to do so. 7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant /petitioner that the authority of the State Transport Authority to formulate the route was never challenged by the appellant before the Writ Court, but its only prayer was to direct the said authority to consider and decide the representations, keeping in view the subsequent survey reports, mentioning that the route in question is non-existent and non-motorable. 8. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. She submits that the State Transport Authority is being empowered to formulate the route, and as such, there is no illegality in the order (Annexure P/9) by which the route was formulated. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 10. It is apparent that the appellant’s/petitioner’s grievance was not to the authority of the State Transport Authority in formulating the route, but its grievance was that Indore to Bhojakhedi route, as has been formulated, is non-existent and non-operatable route, in view of the subsequent survey reports and therefore, the prayer was to consider the representations making prayer to redetermine and reformulate the route, keeping in view the survey reports or by ordering fresh survey. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid and having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not considered the relief, which was claimed by the appellant/writ petitioner in its correct perspective. 12. In the circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and direct the competent authority of the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representations (Annexure P/20 and P/21), keeping in view the survey report filed along with it. It will be open for the said authority to order for fresh survey and to redetermine the issue of formulation of the said route afresh, in case it is found that the route as has been formulated is non-existent and non-motorable. 13. Let appropriate decision in regard to the aforesaid representions be taken by the authority, as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid direction, the writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 15. No order as to costs.