Disposed

M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2020WRIA/2709/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to quash an order cancelling a vehicle permit due to non-deposit of a compounding fee that was never communicated by the authorities. The Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to pass an order on the pending application so the petitioner could deposit the fee and renew the permit.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Regional Transport Authority, District Mirzapur to look into the pending request and pass an appropriate order within two weeks.

M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2709 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2, Secretary, Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), District Mirzapur.

¶7

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner on account of over loading being found on the Vehicle No.U.P 64-T 7616 (Truck) of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.9,100/- was deposited by the petitioner in 12, January, 2018 itself. However, an amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed as compounding fee under provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 could not be deposited because the same was never communicated to the petitioner. As such the respondents are not renewing the authorization of the national permit of the petitioner's vehicle and have further cancelled the permit of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.5,000/- imposed as compounding fee for which an application dated 13.09.2019 has already been moved before the respondent No. 2, Secretary, Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement), District Mirzapur but no order has been passed and as such the aforesaid amount could not be deposited. He has lastly submitted that a direction may be given to the respondent No. 2, Secretary, Regional

¶8

Transport Authority, District Mirzapur to pass appropriate order on the pending request of the petitioner so that petitioner may deposit the amount of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter the petitioner's permit may be restored and renewed.

¶9

Considering the aforesaid facts, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, District Mirzapur to look into the matter and pass appropriate order on the pending request of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this Order.

¶10

Order Date :- 18.2.2020 saqlain

M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Raghubanshi Stone Product v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Transport Lucknow and 2 Others

Sanjay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Singh Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Meera Devi and 119 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dr. Deepak Shukla Vs State of U. P. through Its Principal Secretary and 3 Others

Harish Chandra and 14 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others