PAWAN ARORA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions involved in W.P.Nos., 8077/14, 8152/14, 154/15, 156./15, 158/15, 160/15 and 162/15, they are heard together and decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience facts in W.P.No.8077/14 have been dealt with.

(2.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner a citizen of India and a stage carriage operator has questioned legality, validity and propriety of impugned condition in the notice dated 15/12/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.2, Secretary, State Transport Authority, M.P., Gwalior [in the purported compliance of order dated 26/11/2014 in W.P.No.8678/13 (PIL), Kashmirilal Vs. State of M.P., and others] by a Division Bench of this Court, particularly condition No.3 whereunder an applicant aspiring for grant of permanent permit as stage carriage operator is required to submit the documents on a cut off date in respect of the pending applications for consideration of the application fixed as 27/12/2014 which has been further extended upto 29/12/2014 by respondents'/State vide agenda No.6534/Reader/STA/2014 dated 22/12/2014 for the purpose of complying with the requirements of rule 72(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 in respect of the applications filed in the years 2008, 2009 and 2011 and also fresh applications. It has also been specified that neither documents nor applications filed after 29/12/2014 shall be considered on the date of consideration of applications by State Transport Authority (STA) scheduled on 13/01/2015 and 14/01/2015, however, it appears as is informed at Bar, the schedule date of meeting by STA has been revised and now it is scheduled to be held on 19/01/2015, on following grounds:

(3.) It is submitted that such restrictions imposed in the impugned notices by the respondent/State as regards cut off date for submission of documents in respect of the pending applications, filing fresh applications publication of applications in public notice boards, inviting objections thereupon, in fact and in effect, before the relevant date of consideration of applications besides being in violation of the provisions of the Act of 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder, contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg and also, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Hence, unsustainable in the eye of law.