The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions to consider a pending permit application. The Court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a permit holder of the specific route and thus not a person aggrieved.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 19562 of 2018
The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to opposite parties no.2 and 3 to consider his application in Annexure-5 dated 31.05.2018, which is pending for consideration.
Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the present petitioner and contended that neither the petitioner is a holder of permit nor of the same route, i.e., Rourkela to Sundergarh, nor he is any way affected by any permit granted by the authority. Therefore, at the behest of the petitioner, the present application is not maintainable.
Mr. B.N. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner does not satisfy the Court with regard to locus of the petitioner and, as such, it is contended that even if the petitioner is a permit holder in a public route, the RTO issued such permit so far as the route of Rourkela to Sundergarh is concerned. It is contended that the STA is the competent authority to pass such order not the RTO.
Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since it is the admitted fact that the petitioner
is not a permit holder of the route of Rourkela to Sundargarh, he is not the person aggrieved. Thereby, at his behest, the present application is not maintainable. In the event, the petitioner is a permit holder, then also he has to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Therefore, in both the counts the present application is not maintainable. Mere filing of the writ petition asking for innocuous prayer seeking direction to the opposite parties to consider his application, cannot ipso facto give rise the jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
In such view of the matter, the writ petition merits no consideration and accordingly the same is dismissed.
…………….……………
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE
Ashok
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given that the petitioner is not a permit holder of the contested route and thus not a person aggrieved.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to seek directions to the Transport Department to consider a pending application.
Petitioner
Transport Department
B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
