Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2707/2024 of PRAYAG BUS SERVICE THROUGH PROP. MUKESH KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIORBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAKON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2707 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
1.PRAYAG BUS SERVICE THROUGH PROP. MUKESHKUMAR S/O LATE SHRI CHOKH SINGH, AGED 60YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OPERATOR R/O WARDNO. 12 GHORELLA MOHALLA DEVELOPMENTAREA, SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P. )(MADHYA PRADESH)KUMAR S/O LATE SHRI CHOKH SINGH, AGED 60YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OPERATOR R/O WARDNO. 12 GHORELLA MOHALLA DEVELOPMENTAREA, SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL (M.P. )(MADHYA PRADESH)
2.PRAYAG BUS SERVIE THR. PRO SMT. SWETAJAISWAL W/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, AGED 41YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OPERATOR R/O WARDNO. 12 GHORELLA MOHALLA DEVELOPMENTAREA SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)JAISWAL W/O SHRI VIRENDRA SINGH, AGED 41YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUS OPERATOR R/O WARDNO. 12 GHORELLA MOHALLA DEVELOPMENTAREA SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI GEETESH MARWAL- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF TRANSPORT,VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYAPRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF TRANSPORT,VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MADHYAPRADESH, GWALIOR SIROL PAHADI GWALIOR(MADHYA PRADESH)PRADESH, GWALIOR SIROL PAHADI GWALIOR(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.THE SECY. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYMADHYA PRADESH, GWALIOR SIROL PAHADIGWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MAN SINGH JADON- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FORRESPONDENT/STATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Petitioner No.2, engaged in the business of transportation, holds aStage Carriage Permit. Petitioners filed applications for transfer of permitNo . S C P No.1546/STA/STG/2015 (Shadol to Allahabad), and SCPNo.1671/STA/STG/2016 (Rewa to Allahabad), inter-state routes, on29.08.2022.
2. It is a complaint of the petitioners that so far respondent No.2 has notadverted to and decided the applications.
3. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents submit that on their own showing petitioners have filed the applications wayback on29.08.2022 and maintained their blissful silence for two years. Now, at thisbelated stage, no interference is warranted in the form of writ of mandamus aspetitioners themselves are responsible for the delay caused.
4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, though this Court refrainsfrom commenting upon the rival contentions; however, it is consideredexpedient to observe that the public authority is expected to ensure that all suchmatters falling within his jurisdiction if placed before him are decided withpromptitude to avoid vulnerability in public domain. If the application asreferred above is filed in this case on 29.08.2022, the authority is expected todecide the same in accordance with law expeditiously. That atleast has not beendone.
5. Hence, in the fitness of things, present writ petition is disposed of withthe observation and direction that if in the event the order passed today issubmitted before respondent No.2 within a week he shall be well advised toaddress upon the applications dated 29.08.2022, if not already decided, within a reasonable time but not later than two months from today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Vishal
(ANAND PATHAK)JUDGE