<?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>2012 (9) TMI 1234 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307453</link>
    <description>Under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Delhi HC held that the Regional Transport Authority could impose additional permit conditions requiring auto-rickshaws to carry GPS/GPRS devices, printers and related equipment, because the residuary power to attach or vary permit conditions was wide enough to address technological and public-safety needs without a separate rule-making exercise. It further held that the revised conditions, including the charge linked to installation and operation of the devices, had a rational nexus with passenger safety, route monitoring and fare receipt issuance, and were not arbitrary, ultra vires or an impermissible levy. The challenge to the permit regime therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2023 17:03:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1234 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307453</link>
      <description>Under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Delhi HC held that the Regional Transport Authority could impose additional permit conditions requiring auto-rickshaws to carry GPS/GPRS devices, printers and related equipment, because the residuary power to attach or vary permit conditions was wide enough to address technological and public-safety needs without a separate rule-making exercise. It further held that the revised conditions, including the charge linked to installation and operation of the devices, had a rational nexus with passenger safety, route monitoring and fare receipt issuance, and were not arbitrary, ultra vires or an impermissible levy. The challenge to the permit regime therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>