Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 809 (MP)

ASIF SABBIR PATEL v. STATE OF M. P.

2019-11-19

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri R. D. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri P. S. Raghuvanshi, Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Shri Himanshu Sharma, counsel for the intervenors. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief :? “(i) To direct the Respts. No. 1 and 2 to decide the applications (Annex-P-1) and to grant countersignature of permit (Annex. P-2) permitting operation of its bus in the portion of route falls in M. P. State by depositing the tax as per rules and terms of agreement in the interest of justice and travelling public at large. (ii) Any other order or direction deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.” 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is holding a permanent stage carriage permit to ply the vehicle on Sarani to Ajanjgaon route on two single trip on daily basis which is valid up to 30-8-2023. The STA, Maharashtra in the light of reciprocal agreement has granted permit subject to countersignature by STA, MP. On 24-9-2018 the petitioner made an application for grant of counter signature, however, the said application is still pending and, therefore, it has been prayed that the respondent No. 1 and 2 may be directed to decide the application. 3. Intervenor namely M/s Sajandas Jayendrarai and Company and M/s Berar Regular Motor Service have filed an application for intervention. Reply has been filed to the said intervention application on the ground that the intervenors were not co-applicant of the claimed permit on the route in question and, accordingly, it is prayed that an application filed by the intervenors seeking permission to intervene may be rejected. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It appears that STA, Maharashtra has already granted regular permit for plying the vehicle on Sarani to Ajanjgaon route and on 24-9-2018 the application was filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 3 for its countersignature, who rejected the prayer by order dated 28-12-2018. Against which, the appeal No. 41/19 was filed and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by order dated 6-9-2019 has allowed the appeal and has remanded the matter back to the STA, MP. Thus, it is clear that the application for countersignature is still pending. 6. Against which, the appeal No. 41/19 was filed and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by order dated 6-9-2019 has allowed the appeal and has remanded the matter back to the STA, MP. Thus, it is clear that the application for countersignature is still pending. 6. Accordingly, it is directed that the application filed by the petitioner shall be considered by the STA in its next meeting. 7. So far as the intervention application filed by the intervenors is concerned, they are not the co-applicant, therefore, it is not necessary to hear them in the light of the innocuous prayer for early disposal of the application for grant of countersignature. 8. Accordingly, I. A. No. 5503/2019, which is an application for intervention is hereby rejected. 9. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.