https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278065 Draft transport scheme approval was upheld where objectors raised only general objections and did not seek to lead evidence on any disputed material facts; the authority's mistaken view about rejecting the scheme in full did not, on these facts, vitiate consideration of the objections. Rendering a permit ineffective for only the overlapping portion of a route was treated as permissible partial exclusion under the scheme, and the discrimination claim failed for want of factual basis. Alleged differential treatment of some permit-holders did not establish Article 14 discrimination because the disparity was explained as an inadvertent oversight, not deliberate unequal treatment. The challenge failed and the appeals were dismissed with costs. en-us Tue, 17 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jan 2019 15:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278065 Draft transport scheme approval was upheld where objectors raised only general objections and did not seek to lead evidence on any disputed material facts; the authority's mistaken view about rejecting the scheme in full did not, on these facts, vitiate consideration of the objections. Rendering a permit ineffective for only the overlapping portion of a route was treated as permissible partial exclusion under the scheme, and the discrimination claim failed for want of factual basis. Alleged differential treatment of some permit-holders did not establish Article 14 discrimination because the disparity was explained as an inadvertent oversight, not deliberate unequal treatment. The challenge failed and the appeals were dismissed with costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278065