PRASHANT KUMAR SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

For the respondents no.1 to 5: Mr. Jainandan Kumar Sinha, Junior Counsel to Government Advocate-X For the respondents no.6 & 8 : Mr.Badri Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 05th August, 2008 After having heard the counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that this writ petition is wholly misconceived, misplaced, frivolous and devoid of any substance. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has no cause of action. He is not an aggrieved person either. The transport rivalry against respondents no.6, 7 and 8 seems to have tempted him to file this writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, nothing but a litigation intended to harass the respondents no.6, 7 and 8.

The counsel for the petitioner would urge that the respondents no.6, 7 and 8 defaulted in payment of taxes, and, - 2 - therefore, their permits became inoperative by virtue of Section 25 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994, but despite that the said respondents continued to operate resulting into loss to the petitioner.

We are afraid, the contention is wholly misconceived. If the taxes under the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 against the respondents no.6, 7 and 8 had become due, it is for the respondent no.5 to take action against the said respondents. Surely, the respondents no.6, 7 and 8 had valid permit and continued to operate on the route as per permit. By no stretch of imagination, can it be said that any loss has been caused to the petitioner by the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8.

We are of the view that filing of such frivolous writ petition needs to be nipped in the bud. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition with cost which we quantify at Rs.5,000/- ( Rupee five thousand). R.M. Lodha, CJ Sunil Kishore K. Mandal, J.