KAJAL VASHISTH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 30.6.2012, whereby the Collector has deferred the hearing of the application for providing the vehicle on 'supurdigi' to the petitioner.

(2.) SHRI Pratip Visoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred an application along with necessary affidavit for releasing the vehicle on 'supurdigi' and the authority below has committed an error in not passing the orders and deferring the hearing of the said application after the decision of the authority. He relied on AIR 1986 ANDHRA PRADESH 82 (G.Subbarama Naidu v. The Joint Collector, Chittoor Distt. and others) and judgment passed by this Court in Misc.Cri.Case No. 2931/2012 (Parsadilal vs. State of MP) (Annexure P-8).

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.