https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185203 Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be used by executive order to control the quasi-judicial discretion of the Regional Transport Authority in permit transfers, so a direction requiring prior confirmation by the Transport Commissioner was invalid. The transfer proposal, having been agreed during the permit-holder's lifetime, paid for, and already recorded by the authority as unobjectionable, was treated as sanctioned once the unlawful confirmation requirement was disregarded. Rule 199-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, applied only before sanction and did not permit withdrawal of consent after transfer had become effective. The transfer in favour of the Roadways was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Aug 2016 17:46:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185203 Section 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be used by executive order to control the quasi-judicial discretion of the Regional Transport Authority in permit transfers, so a direction requiring prior confirmation by the Transport Commissioner was invalid. The transfer proposal, having been agreed during the permit-holder's lifetime, paid for, and already recorded by the authority as unobjectionable, was treated as sanctioned once the unlawful confirmation requirement was disregarded. Rule 199-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, applied only before sanction and did not permit withdrawal of consent after transfer had become effective. The transfer in favour of the Roadways was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Apr 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185203