Abdul Naeem Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Abdul Naeem vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 04, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042967

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1042967
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 04, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Naeem

Advocate Shri. H.C.Kohli

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....according to petitioner with a view to provide better facility and comfort to the travelling public, petitioner filed an application under section 83 of the motor vehicle act, 1988 seeking replacement of existing vehicle by a latest model of 2009 delux bus with seating capacity 41+1. holding that the said vehicle reduces the seating capacity, the permit for change of vehicle cannot be granted, the application is rejected and petitioner is before this court. inviting my attention to certain judgments of division bench, amendment of the provisions of section 77(1)(a) of the m.v.act and contending that the rejection of application is contrary to the scheme and placing reliance on an order passed by the m.p.state transport tribunal, the application is rejected without consideration, shri kohli prays for interference into the matter. shri s.s.bisen, points out that against the order passed, petitioner has right to appeal/revision before the competent authority and, therefore, a petition directly before this court is not maintainable. 2 having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that the change of vehicle is not permissible in view of certain orders already passed by the secretary, regional transport authority, the application is rejected. the orders in question are to be challenged by the petitioner to approach the m.p.state transport appellate tribunal and, therefore, a petition directly before this court without taking recours.of remedy of appeal/revision is not permissible. accordingly, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order before the appropriate tribunal, this petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge ss/-

Full Judgment

Abdul Naeem versus State of M.P.& Another Writ Petition No.1024 ”

4. 2.2013: Shri H.C.Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents, on advance notice.

Challenging order dated 22.12.2012 passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Bhopal, rejecting an application filed by petitioner for running a particular bus with seating capacity of 50+2, this writ petition has been filed.

Petitioner holds a permit of stage carriage from route Bhopal to Jabalpur and is using a vehicle bearing registration not MP04H-9023 Model 2001 with seating capacity 50+2.

According to petitioner with a view to provide better facility and comfort to the travelling public, petitioner filed an application under Section 83 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 seeking replacement of existing vehicle by a latest model of 2009 Delux Bus with seating capacity 41+1.

Holding that the said vehicle reduces the seating capacity, the permit for change of vehicle cannot be granted, the application is rejected and petitioner is before this Court.

Inviting my attention to certain judgments of Division Bench, amendment of the provisions of Section 77(1)(a) of the M.V.Act and contending that the rejection of application is contrary to the scheme and placing reliance on an order passed by the M.P.State Transport Tribunal, the application is rejected without consideration, Shri Kohli prays for interference into the matter.

Shri S.S.Bisen, points out that against the order passed, petitioner has right to appeal/revision before the competent authority and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court is not maintainable.

2 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is clear that the change of vehicle is not permissible in view of certain orders already passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the application is rejected.

The orders in question are to be challenged by the petitioner to approach the M.P.State Transport Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.of remedy of appeal/revision is not permissible.

Accordingly, with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order before the appropriate tribunal, this petition is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Abdul Naeem vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education