Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

M/S Shubham Stone Company vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|20 June, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9669 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Shubham Stone Company Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard Sri Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.1.2018, passed by Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, District Mirzapur i.e. respondent no.2. Further prayer is made to direct the respondents to renew the authorization of aforesaid N.P. Permit as well as for directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to deposit the compoundable amount sum of Rs.10,200/- as authorization fee to renew the aforesaid aforesaid authorization certificate of the petitioner relating to Vehicle (Truck) No. UP-64AT/1153.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn out attention towards an order dated 31.01.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.1636 of 2019 (Anurag Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) in similar facts to which the learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the same. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
"According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of over loading being found on the Vehicle No.U.P 63-T 3431 (Truck) of the petitioner, an amount of Rs.15,400/- was deposited by the petitioner in 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 2.1.2019 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 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.
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."
In view of the above, the benefit of the order passed in Writ-A No.1636 of 2019, which has been extracted above, is also extended to the petitioner in the present case.
The writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 20.6.2019 Puspendra
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

M/S Shubham Stone Company vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
20 June, 2019
Judges
  • Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Advocates
  • Arun Srivastava