<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (7) TMI 1155 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197831</link>
    <description>Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits modification of an approved scheme only by the State Government after publication and hearing of affected persons. A hearing authority authorised merely to receive objections cannot approve or modify the scheme, so a purported approval beyond that mandate has no legal effect. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore allows rescission of the earlier notification where no valid approval had been made. The document also reiterates that once a route is covered by a valid nationalisation scheme, private operators have no enforceable right to ply on overlapping portions unless the scheme itself permits such operation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1155 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197831</link>
      <description>Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits modification of an approved scheme only by the State Government after publication and hearing of affected persons. A hearing authority authorised merely to receive objections cannot approve or modify the scheme, so a purported approval beyond that mandate has no legal effect. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 therefore allows rescission of the earlier notification where no valid approval had been made. The document also reiterates that once a route is covered by a valid nationalisation scheme, private operators have no enforceable right to ply on overlapping portions unless the scheme itself permits such operation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>