Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 453 (JHR)

Bindeshwar Mahto v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-03-06

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. H.K. Mahato the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Richa Sanchita, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the respondent no.3, Deputy Transport Commissioner cum Secretary, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi whereby the grant to permit for is replaced auto rickshaw No.JH01F7822 has been refused. 3. Mr. Mahato, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner was having the permission with regard to auto rickshaw and that permit was valid from 09.05.2014 to 05.09.2014. He submits that in view of the fact that as the old auto rickshaw has attained the age of 10 years, he requires to replace the same and in that view of the matter he purchased the new petrol auto rickshaw and applied for approval of the said permit to the said auto rickshaw, but by the impugned order the same has been refused by the authority concerned. He submits that the ground taken in the rejection order is not tenable. He submits that the expiry date of the said has been wrongly recorded as 22.09.2012 and it has been rejected. He draw the attention of the Court to Annexure 4 at page 25 which is old permit of the petitioner wherein it is clearly depicted that the permit is valid from 09.05.2014 to 05.09.2014. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Mrs. Richa Sanchita the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the fact that there is over loaded rickshaw and in that view of the matter the authority concerned has not granted permit. She further submits that there is alternative remedy to the petitioner and the petitioner can be directed to move before the appellate authority. The Court has perused the impugned order wherein it has been wrongly stated that the earlier permit of the petitioner has come to expire on 22.09.2012 which is contradictory finding in view of the permit which is annexed with the writ petition wherein it is clearly stated that the permit is valid from 09.05.2014 to 05.09.2014. A poor person has been compelled to approach this Court for non-application of mind on behalf of the authority concerned. 5. A poor person has been compelled to approach this Court for non-application of mind on behalf of the authority concerned. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law and accordingly the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 is quashed. The petitioner is directed to approach the authority concerned by way of filing fresh representation alongwith the earlier permit and the certificate of registration of the auto rickshaw and he will consider the certification of registration, the earlier permit and also consider that he has already purchased a new auto rickshaw and he will consider this aspect of the matter sympathetically and will pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition [W.P.(C) No.4477 of 2016] is allowed and disposed in the aforesaid terms.