M.P. Bus Operator Association Vs. State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WA, 653 of 2021, Judgment Date: Aug 09, 2021

Law laid down -

1. Administrative Order – source of power / enabling provision is not shown/reflected in the order – the enabling provision can be brought to the notice of the Court by filing reply. If such reply is filed, that does not mean that a new reason is assigned by filing reply. Non-mentioning or wrong mentioning of enabling provision will not make the order vulnerable if otherwise power of authority can be traced from the relevant statute.

2. Disaster Management Act, 2005 – Section 20 – at appellate stage it is argued that order is passed by incompetent authority, whereas it should have been passed only by a committee constituted under Section 20 of the Act – held – there was no pleading in this regard in the writ petition. It was a mixed question of facts and law as to which authority/committee has taken decision. As per Government procedure, many times the decisions are taken by competent body and communicated by inferior officer. In absence of pleading in the writ petition, interference declined.

3. Section 24 of Disaster Management Act, 2005 is wide enough to prevent the movement of vehicle from disaster affected areas. Act gives ample power to the authority to stop, control or regulate the vehicular movement taking into account the pandemic situation.

4. Statutory provision & administrative instructions – administrative instruction can supplement the statutory provision but it cannot supplant it. In the event of conflict between the two, statutory provision will prevail.

5. Writ appeal – if Writ Court has taken a plausible view, no interference is warranted.

M.P. Bus Operator Association Vs. State of M.P.