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>Transport Permits Jurisdiction Clarified by High Court, Emphasizes Consistency and Fairness</h1> <h3>JOY Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY</h3> The High Court held that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal lacks the authority to grant permits, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Regional ... Precedent - Appellate Tribunal - Powers of Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the power of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to grant permits, consistency in judicial decisions, and the directive to the Regional Transport Authority to treat applicants equally.State Transport Appellate Tribunal's Power to Grant Permits: The High Court observed that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal does not have the authority to grant permits, as this function lies with the Regional Transport Authority. The Tribunal can either set aside an order and remit the matter to the Authority or allow the appeal entirely. In this case, since there was no challenge against the Tribunal's orders, the Court did not interfere with them.Consistency in Judicial Decisions: The Court noted that the Tribunal had issued contradictory orders on the same day in similar cases. It emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and consistency in rendering judgments. Inconsistencies in decisions can lead to complaints of discriminatory treatment, eroding public trust in the judicial system. The Court highlighted that while errors in legal decisions may occur, consistency is crucial even in such situations.Directive to Treat Applicants Equally: Due to the inconsistency in the Tribunal's orders, the Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to treat all applicants equally. It declared that the petitioner should receive similar treatment to another applicant in a related case. This directive was issued under the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court clarified that its decision did not prejudice any third parties and did not express an opinion on the merits of the case, but aimed to rectify the inconsistency in the Tribunal's orders.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
