Mandamus to State Transport Authority to Decide Remanded Permit Application Within Stipulated Timeframe

The petitioner, engaged in the passenger transport business and holding a valid stage carriage permit, applied on 09.07.2025 to the State Transport Authority (respondent No. 2) for grant of a regular/permanent stage carriage permit on the inter-State route from Indore to Mumbai via Dhamnod, Khalghat, Dhule, Nasik, Bhiwandi and Thane, covering one daily trip.

This route appears at Serial No. 8 of Schedule 'C' of the Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated 01.03.2007 between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, under which 12 permits with 12 daily trips were earmarked; 10 permits had been granted and one trip remained vacant.

The Authority rejected the application on 21.11.2025 solely on the ground of non-submission of certain relevant documents.

The petitioner appealed to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 23.12.2025 (Appeal No. 193/2025), which allowed the appeal on 28.01.2026, set aside the rejection order, and remanded the matter with a direction to afford the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing and decide expeditiously in accordance with law.

In compliance, the petitioner submitted an application along with a certified copy of the Tribunal's order to the Authority on 02.02.2026; however, the Authority neither reconsidered the application nor passed any fresh order, nor communicated the status of proceedings.

The petitioner therefore invoked this Court's writ jurisdiction, and the State expressed no objection to a time-bound direction being issued.

1. Whether the State Transport Authority (respondent No. 2) is liable to be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated 02.02.2026 in light of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal's remand order dated 28.01.2026, after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing?

2. Whether a fixed and reasonable time frame should be prescribed for such exercise, given the Authority's failure to act on the Tribunal's order despite receipt of a certified copy?

3. Whether the Authority may be directed to decide by holding a meeting or through circulation, in accordance with sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 65?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers a High Court to issue writs/directions compelling a statutory authority to discharge its legal duty, including compliance with binding appellate orders.

Rule 65, sub-rules (2) and (3) (relating to the procedure of the Transport Authority acting through meetings or circulation for disposal of matters).

Stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, read with the Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated 01.03.2007 between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.

Principal of administrative law: where an appellate tribunal sets aside an order and remands the matter, the subordinate authority is obligated to re-decide expeditiously and in accordance with law, the remand order being binding on it.

The Court limited the scope of adjudication to the narrow, uncontroverted question of enforcement of the Tribunal's remand order, noting that the Tribunal had, on 28.01.2026, set aside the rejection and directed the Authority to re-hear and decide expeditiously, yet the Authority failed to act despite receiving a certified copy on 02.02.2026.

Given the petitioner's concession confining relief to a mere direction for time-bound disposal, and the State's affirmative consent to such course, the Court found no adversarial controversy requiring deeper examination of entitlement to the permit itself.

Applying Article 226 as an instrument to secure administrative compliance with appellate directions, the Court concluded that the ends of justice demanded compelling respondent No. 2 to complete the remanded exercise — hearing the petitioner and deciding the application — within a definite outer limit, while consciously abstaining from any comment on merits so as to preserve the Authority's adjudicatory autonomy on remand.

The exercise is to be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim.