Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/2570/2024 of THE BERAR REGULAR MOTOR SERVICES PROP GHANSHYAM AGARWAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 2 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKEON THE 2[nd] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 2570 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
THE BERAR REGULAR MOTOR SERVICES PROPGHANSHYAM AGARWAL S/O LATE SHRI OMKARMALAGARWAL, AGED-81 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSOPERATOR R/O BHAINSDEHI DISTRICT BETUL(MADHYA PRADESH)
(BY SHRI NEERENDRA SHARMA- ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
1.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHPRINCIPAL SECRETARY BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BHOPAL (MADHYAPRADESH)
2.PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OFMAHARASHTRA MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)
3.SECRETARY STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYMOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)MOTI MAHAL, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.SECRETARY STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITYMTNL BUILDING FOUNTAIN BUILDING-2 5THFLOOR MG ROAD FORT MUMBAIMTNL BUILDING FOUNTAIN BUILDING-2 5THFLOOR MG ROAD FORT MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
(BY SHRI K.S. TOMAR- GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
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. The petitioner has raised a grievance that there is a ReciprocalTransport Agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Maharashtra in regard to grant of State Carriage temporary PermitNo.07/STA/2024 from Chhindwara to Akola (Inter-State) covered by vehicleNo.MH20-DD9851 valid w.e.f. 03.01.2024 to 30.04.2024. Despite theapplication made for counter-signature, the STA Maharashtra is not counter-signing the permit nor permitting the petitioner to ply the vehicle in the portionof State of Maharashtra. As per the agreement dated 01.03.2007 between theState of Madhya Pradesh and State of Maharashtra, such denial on the part ofrespondent No.4 is unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
2. In view of such submissions, this petition is disposed of with adirection to respondents No.2 and 4 to take a decision on counter-signature ofthe permit under the provisions of Reciprocal Agreement notified dated01.03.2007 within a period of 30 days of receipt of a certified copy of theorder, which the petitioner shall be obliged to furnish to respondents No.2 and4 within 07 days from today and when such order is furnished, the authorities ofrespondents No.2 and 4 shall either counter-sign the permit if it fulfills therequirements of the agreement dated 01.03.2007 or shall communicate thereasoning for not counter-signing the permit to the petitioner, to which thepetitioner will be free to assail before the appropriate Forum. In the meanwhile,the petitioner will be permitted to ply his vehicle in accordance with terms andconditions of the permit and the said vehicle be not stopped on the ground ofnon-countersigning the permit by the State of Maharashtra subject to thecondition that petitioner complies with all other conditions of the permit.
3. C.C. as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)