https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175880 Where the Motor Vehicles Act made the permit scheme subject to prescribed rules, the renewal of a countersignature on an inter-regional stage carriage permit had to follow the authority allocated by those rules. Rules 61 to 63 linked renewal of the countersignature to the Regional Transport Authority that renewed the permit, and the Court treated the word "may" in rule 63 as mandatory in that context. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur therefore lacked competence to renew the countersignature; that power vested in the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The renewal order was illegal and was rightly quashed. en-us Fri, 15 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 10:36:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175880 Where the Motor Vehicles Act made the permit scheme subject to prescribed rules, the renewal of a countersignature on an inter-regional stage carriage permit had to follow the authority allocated by those rules. Rules 61 to 63 linked renewal of the countersignature to the Regional Transport Authority that renewed the permit, and the Court treated the word "may" in rule 63 as mandatory in that context. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur therefore lacked competence to renew the countersignature; that power vested in the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The renewal order was illegal and was rightly quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 15 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175880