Full Judgment
WP No.2063 of 2014 25.2.2014.
Shri Abhisheik Oswal for the petitioner.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA, for respondents.
Petitioner has sought the following relief: “1.
To call for the records for the satisfaction of this Hon'ble court.
2.
That, a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing Order dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure-P/4).ex-parte order dated 27.07.2012 (Annexure P-6) and 11.07.2013 (Annexure-P-8) directing the respondent No.3 to consider the issue afresh and allow a reasonable time to the petitioner to obtain exemption from the State Government as recommended by the State Level Committee.
3.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner along with cost of the petition.” It is submitted by the petitioner that the controveRs.involved in this case is squarely covered by Division Bench Judgment of this court in W.P.No.2059 of 2014(O) (Suyash Packaging v.
State of M.P.and ORS.decided on 5.2.14 and with similar directions this petition may also be disposed of.
The prayer is not opposed by Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, GA, hence, it is allowed.
W.P.No.2059/2014 (O) was finally disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order which reads thus : “Although three separate orders have been challenged in this writ petition, however, if we were to accept the grievance of the petitioner in relation to the third order, the appropriate couRs.would be to relegate the parties before the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration of annexure P/7, which was the application filed by the petitioner under rule 61(4) of the M.P.V.A.T.Rules, 2006.
Therefore, we would confine this order to the efficacy of the decision of the appropriate authority on the said application dated 11.7.2013, annexure P/8.
Although, the petitioner relied on the medical evidence in support of the ground that he could not remain present on the date of hearing of the WP No.2063 of 2014 appeal listed before the Appellate Authority, the Authority rejected the application merely by observing that the evidence produced by the petitioner in support of the application was insufficient.
It would have been a different matter if the Authority were to take the view that the medical evidence produced by the petitioner was not admissible or worthy of reliance.
Merely saying that the evidence was insufficient and without mentioning the fact that it was referring to medical evidence appended to the application, annexure P/ 7, it was not appropriate for the Authority to reject the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 61(4).In the circumstances, we set aside the decision dated 11.7.2013, annexure P/8, and, instead, direct the appropriate Authority to rehear the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 61(4) of the M.P.V.A.T.Rules, 2006, dated 29.11.2012, annexure P/7, expeditiously.
The appropriate Authority shall decide the said application within two weeks from the date of producing certified copy of this order.
At this stage counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner be given some protection till the appropriate Authority decides the application.
It is noticed from the record that there is no protection order operating in favour of the petitioner since July, 2013.
The fact that petitioner has succeeded in challenging the order, annexure P/8, does not necessarily follow that the interim protection should be given by this Court.
The petitioner in the restored proceedings may apply for appropriate interim protection.
It is for the concerned Authority to examine the said request of the petitioner on its own merits.
Petition disposed of on the above terms.” As stated by the petitioner, the controveRs.involved in this case is identical, this petition is also finally disposed of in terms of directions issued in Suyash Packaging (supra).No order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Judge Khan*