Facts
The petitioner filed an application for a temporary stage carriage permit for the Khawasa to Jabalpur and back route
Source reference: p. 1Due to the respondent authority's failure to decide on the application, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent No. 2 (Regional Transport Authority) to decide the matter within a 10-day timeframe, consistent with a previous order in W.P. No. 10124/2026
Source reference: p. 1-2The respondents/State raised no objection to the petitioner’s request for an expedited decision
Source reference: p. 2Issues
Whether the respondent authority is legally obligated to decide an application for a temporary stage carriage permit within the timeframe stipulated by government circulars and the Motor Vehicles Act
Source reference: p. 2-3Law Applied
Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which allows the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits for a limited period (not exceeding four months) to meet a particular temporary need without following the standard procedure laid down in Section 80
Source reference: p. 2-3Government of Madhya Pradesh (Parivahan Vibhag Mantralaya) Circular dated 04.06.2014, which mandates that applications for temporary permits must be resolved within 10 days
Source reference: p. 2Reasoning
The court examined the statutory framework under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, noting that temporary permits are intended for urgent or seasonal needs and do not require the rigorous procedures of regular permits
Source reference: p. 2-3It highlighted that the State Government’s 2014 Circular provides a specific administrative timeline of 10 days for the disposal of such applications to ensure efficiency
Source reference: p. 2Given that the petitioner’s request was merely for a timely decision and the State had no objection, the court found it appropriate to enforce the timeline prescribed in the Circular
Source reference: p. 2-3The court emphasized that while the authority must decide within 10 days, this directive does not reflect an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's application
Source reference: p. 3Holding
The High Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending application in accordance with law and the provisions of Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The court ordered the respondent to communicate the outcome within 10 days of receiving the certified copy of the order
Source reference: p. 3Additionally, the court held that the petitioner is strictly prohibited from plying the vehicle until the permit is actually granted
Source reference: p. 3Original Court PDF
Koushlendra SinghvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in