https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288554 The State Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to invite and grant a permit for a route falling within two Regional Transport Authorities, because Section 45 required applications to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority and no prior assumption of common-route functions under Section 44(3)(b) was shown. Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules could not cure that absence of statutory authority, so the permit grant was void. The challenge was not barred by estoppel or submission to jurisdiction, since a defect going to the root of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent, appearance, or acquiescence. The permit grant and appellate order were quashed. en-us Thu, 20 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2020 14:46:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288554 The State Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to invite and grant a permit for a route falling within two Regional Transport Authorities, because Section 45 required applications to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority and no prior assumption of common-route functions under Section 44(3)(b) was shown. Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules could not cure that absence of statutory authority, so the permit grant was void. The challenge was not barred by estoppel or submission to jurisdiction, since a defect going to the root of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent, appearance, or acquiescence. The permit grant and appellate order were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Jul 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288554