DINESH NAND JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that an order passed by the respondents dated 12th March, 2008 is under challenge and by the impugned order, an application, preferred by the present petitioner for getting permanent permit under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed. LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has pointed out that Annexure-3 is thoroughly a non-speaking order and the whole application of the present petitioner has been brushed aside by using only one word "dismissed". The said order must be dismissed with an exemplary cost by this Court as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the officer, who has passed the order, is so arbitrary that he has not properly appreciated that the dismissal order is an appellable order under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Unless, the reasons are given, nothing can be appreciated by the appellate authority under the Act, 1988. Whenever any order is an appellable order, a reason order must be passed. Simple proposition of law is not known to the officer, who has passed the order and, therefore, let the impugned order may be quashed with cost and the matter may be remanded to the respondents for taking a fresh decision, within stipulated time.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no objection if the matter is remanded for a fresh decision upon an application of the petitioner under Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the said application will be decided by the competent authority within two weeks.