TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether permits could be granted on a route or portion of a route covered by a notified scheme providing total exclusion of private operators; (ii) whether dismissal of earlier special leave petitions by non-speaking orders operated as res judicata or amounted to affirmation of the High Court's reasoning.
Issue (i): whether permits could be granted on a route or portion of a route covered by a notified scheme providing total exclusion of private operators.
Analysis: The route in question overlapped with a notified sector already covered by an earlier scheme, and a later notification had also brought the remaining sector under notification. Once a scheme provides total exclusion, the authorities cannot lawfully grant permits to private operators on any part of the notified route unless the scheme is modified. The existence of earlier administrative or judicial orders did not override the statutory prohibition created by the notified schemes.
Conclusion: The grant of permits on the notified route could not be sustained and was against the appellant's contention.
Issue (ii): whether dismissal of earlier special leave petitions by non-speaking orders operated as res judicata or amounted to affirmation of the High Court's reasoning.
Analysis: A non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition only signifies that special leave was not granted. It does not amount to a decision on the merits, does not affirm the reasoning of the judgment under challenge, and does not create res judicata for separate proceedings. The earlier remand order also did not decide the merits of the notified-route issue.
Conclusion: The earlier special leave petition dismissals did not bar reconsideration of the legal issue.
Final Conclusion: The impugned High Court order could not stand because permits had been directed on notified routes contrary to the statutory scheme, and the earlier non-speaking dismissals did not preclude examination of that illegality.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a route or part of a route is covered by a notified scheme of total exclusion, no permit can be granted to a private operator on that notified portion unless the scheme is lawfully modified; a non-speaking dismissal of a special leave petition does not operate as res judicata or as an affirmation on merits.
TaxTMI 
