TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Appellate Tribunal Decision on Stage Carriage Permits</h1> <h3>Sharif Ahmad and Ors. Versus Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to issue stage carriage permits to fifty applicants following the Appellate Tribunal's ... - Issues Involved:1. Limitation on the number of stage carriage permits.2. Validity of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1972.3. Issuance of permits by the Regional Transport Authority.4. Effect of the notification dated September 24, 1975.5. Retrospective effect of U.P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976.6. Issuance of writ of mandamus.Summary:1. Limitation on the number of stage carriage permits:Under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, limited the number of stage carriage permits to thirty for the route Meerut-Rohta-Sinali-Baraut. In 1971, eight permits were granted, and fifty applicants who were not granted permits filed appeals u/s 64 of the Central Act.2. Validity of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1972:The U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment Ordinance No. 9 of 1972, replaced by the U.P. Act of 1972, inserted Section 43A in the Central Act, authorizing the State Government to issue directions regarding road transport. The Act aimed to remove the limit on the number of permits. The constitutional validity of the Act and the notification dated March 30, 1972, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Hans Raj Kehar & Ors. v. The State of U.P. and Ors.3. Issuance of permits by the Regional Transport Authority:The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals on February 19, 1975, granting permits to the fifty applicants, provided they met certain conditions by March 31, 1975. The appellants complied, but permits were not issued due to further litigation initiated by those initially granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority.4. Effect of the notification dated September 24, 1975:The notification proposed a policy change, staying the disposal of pending applications for permits. The High Court misinterpreted this notification, thinking it prevented the issuance of permits. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the notification did not affect permits already granted by the Appellate Tribunal.5. Retrospective effect of U.P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976:The U.P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976, which came into force on May 1, 1976, amended Section 43-A with retrospective effect. The argument that this made the Appellate Tribunal's order illegal was rejected. The order was legal when made, and the retrospective change in law did not nullify it.6. Issuance of writ of mandamus:The Supreme Court held that the Regional Transport Authority failed in its legal duty by not issuing the permits as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court directed the issuance of a writ of mandamus, compelling the Authority to issue the permits. The total period of temporary permits issued must be deducted from the three-year permit period.Conclusion:The appeals were allowed, and the Regional Transport Authority was directed to implement the Appellate Tribunal's orders and issue the permits to the appellants. No order as to costs was made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
