Dismissed

Dharam Singh Rana v. Teh State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 May 2023SPA/119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition due to the availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Special Appeal was dismissed, directing the Appellate Tribunal to consider time spent in these proceedings while dealing with the condonation of delay application.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed; Tribunal directed to condone delay considering time spent in these proceedings.

Dharam Singh Rana Vs Teh State of Uttarakhand — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI

¶4

AND

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

¶6

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2023

¶7

02^ND MAY, 2023

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

Dharam Singh Rana …..Appellant.

¶10

And

¶11

State of Uttarakhand & othe	rs	….Respon	dents.
Counsel for the Appellant	:	Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, counsel.	learned
Counsel for the State	:	Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General	learned .
Counsel for the State of U.P.	:	Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Counsel.	Standing
Counsel for the Respondent No.6	:	Mr. Shobhit Joshi,proxy for Mr. Ashish Joshi, counsel.	counsel learned
Counsel for the Private Respondents	:	Mr. Amar Murti Shukla Shankar Agarwal, counsels.	and Mr. learned

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)

¶14

The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 29.03.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.859 of 2023, whereby the said writ petition, preferred by the appellant, has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy of preferring a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶15

The appellant had preferred the said writ petition to assail the decision No.08 (6), dated 13.07.2022 along with

¶16

¶17

the approval order dated 25.11.2022, as well as the letter dated 01.11.2022 issued by respondent no.3 in the writ petition, i.e. the State Transport Authority (for short ‘STA’). The petitioner had also assailed the decisions dated 28.02.2009 and 31.10.2011, passed by the STA, Dehradun, by which initially permits in respect to a portion of a interstate route, from Dehradun- Vikasnagar- Kulhal, were granted, and thereafter, the said permits were confirmed vide decision dated 31.10.2011. Other connected reliefs were sought by the appellant in the writ petition.

¶18

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, would be of no avail since the Appellate Tribunal would be confronted with the judgment dated 18.12.2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of S.K. Srivastava vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & others, Writ Petition (M/S)

¶19

No.1547 of 2007 and other connected writ petitions. A copy of that judgment has been placed on record, which we have perused.

¶20

The judgment of the learned Single Judge in S.K. Srivastava (supra.), in our view, does not come in the way of the appellant in pursuing his revisional remedy, since the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that under the garb of the said judgment, the respondents have illegally

¶21

¶22

granted permit in favour of the private respondents, which has been assailed by the appellant.

¶23

If that is so, it would be open to the appellant to raise all his submissions before the Tribunal, and we see no impediment with the Tribunal in arriving at its decision on merits after hearing all the concerned parties.

¶24

We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶25

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

We, however, make it clear that the Tribunal shall consider the time spent by the appellant in pursuing the writ proceedings and the present special appeal while dealing with the delay condonation application that may be moved by the appellant while pursuing his revisional remedy.

¶27

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶28

(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)

¶29

(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)

¶30

Dated: 02^nd May, 2023 NISHANT

Dharam Singh Rana v. Teh State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh Rana v. Teh State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S G D S Infra Structure a Proprietorship Firm Vs State of Uttarakhand

Bhupendra Singh Gusai Vs Chairman and Managing Director Power Grid Corproration of India

Mohan Chandra Balodi Vs Piyush Kant Dixit

Mr Anand Thapli Vs State of U.P,through the Secretary,Urban Development, Lucknow

Urja Samiti Ramgarh Vs Teeka Ram

Mahendra Prasad Dwivedi Vs State of Uttarakhand