Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 452 (MP)

Ajit Kumar Jain v. State of M. P.

2024-05-28

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2024
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-- (i) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.4.2024 (Ann.P/4) passed by respondent No. 3. (ii) The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition restrain the respondent No. 3 to grant any temporary permit without delegation of power under rule 67 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner, together with the cost of this petition. 2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 4 filed an application for grant of temporary permit on Sunwara to Jabalpur route. The Competent Authority while passing the impugned order has held that on account of Akshay Tritiya, agricultural works, medical facilities as well as Court related works, it is necessary to provide a public conveyance for the benefit of passengers and accordingly, it was held that there is a temporary need. 3. Challenging the order passed by the Secretary, RTA, Jabalpur as well as temporary permit issued to respondent No. 4, it is submitted that Akshay Tritiya which is a religious requirement, is not covered under section 87 (1) (c) but it would be covered by section 87 (1) (a). Even if, it is presumed that there will be more flow of passengers on account of some religious occasion, then that particular temporary need would be for 2 or 3 days and temporary permit cannot be granted for two months. Furthermore, for agricultural activities, provision for grant of temporary permit is under section 87 (1) (b). However, Secretary, RTA has granted temporary permit under section 87 (1) (c) on the ground that apart from Akshay Tritiya and agricultural activities, passengers are in the need to commute for medical purposes as well as to attend the Court cases. 4. It is submitted that this cannot be a particular temporary need. Furthermore, Secretary, RTA, Jabalpur has not considered the availability of the buses plying on the said route and without considering the total number of passengers requiring issuance of temporary permit, temporary permit in question has been issued. 4. It is submitted that this cannot be a particular temporary need. Furthermore, Secretary, RTA, Jabalpur has not considered the availability of the buses plying on the said route and without considering the total number of passengers requiring issuance of temporary permit, temporary permit in question has been issued. It is further submitted that temporary permit cannot be issued by way of substitute to the regular stage carriage permit and section 87 has been provided to meet out emergent eventualities. It is further submitted that it is clear from approved Time Table of the second trip, bus would depart from Jabalpur at 12:55 and would reach Jodhpur at 16:20, whereas Jodhpur is hardly 15 kms. away from Jabalpur and the bus would require only 15 minutes to travel. 5. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondent No. 4. It is submitted that Secretary, RTA Jabalpur has considered the requirement of temporary need and, therefore, temporary permit granted to respondent No. 4 is in accordance with law. 6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties. 7. Although, in his application filed by respondent no. 4 under Rule 72 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, it was mentioned that on account of Akshay Tritiya, agricultural activities, medical facilities as well as the Court related works, temporary need is in existence. Without considering the correctness of the said claim, Secretary, RTA has issued temporary permit. There is no discussion as to how the buses which are already plying on the said route are not sufficient to cater the need of commuters. Furthermore, Akshay Tritiya would fall under section 87 (1) (a) whereas agriculture activities would fall under section 87 (1) (b). 8. It is true that medical college is situated in Jabalpur and Courts are also situated in the Jabalpur city but temporary permit can be granted only if total number of buses plying on the said route on the basis of regular stage carriage permit are not sufficient to cater the need of passengers. Furthermore, if the requirement of medical facilities and Court related works is considered, then it cannot be said to be a temporary need. Furthermore, if the requirement of medical facilities and Court related works is considered, then it cannot be said to be a temporary need. It is a need in perpetuity and for that purposes, temporary permit should not have been granted and if the Competent Authority is of the view that the total number of buses plying on Sunwara to Jabalpur route are not sufficient to cater the need of the commuters, then instead of granting temporary permit, should grant regular stage carriage permit. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where one ground of Akshay Tritiya falls under section 87 (1) (a) and second ground of agricultural activities falls under section 87 (1) (b), this Court is of the considered opinion that Secretary, RTA should not have granted temporary permit under section 87 (1) (c) for the said purposes. 10.So far as the medical facilities and Court related works are concerned, they are perpetual in nature and cannot be said that they are particular temporary need. 11.Considering the totalities of the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 30.4.2024 passed by Secretary, RTA Jabalpur to ply bus No. MP20ZK-9959 on Sunwara to Jabalpur route is hereby quashed and as a consequence thereof, temporary permit issued in favour of respondent No. 4 is also hereby quashed. 12. Petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.