<?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>1960 (9) TMI 127 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468992</link>
    <description>After approval of a transport scheme, the Regional Transport Authority could refuse to entertain pending renewal applications for stage carriage permits once the notified routes were covered by the approved scheme, because the special statutory regime was treated as wide enough to include rejection of applications still pending when the scheme came into force. A challenge to the scheme on discrimination and extraneous influence also failed: the discrimination plea was not properly pleaded, and the recorded reasons showed reliance on public interest, transport adequacy and improved amenities, which were relevant considerations. The petition was dismissed on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 May 2026 11:44:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (9) TMI 127 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468992</link>
      <description>After approval of a transport scheme, the Regional Transport Authority could refuse to entertain pending renewal applications for stage carriage permits once the notified routes were covered by the approved scheme, because the special statutory regime was treated as wide enough to include rejection of applications still pending when the scheme came into force. A challenge to the scheme on discrimination and extraneous influence also failed: the discrimination plea was not properly pleaded, and the recorded reasons showed reliance on public interest, transport adequacy and improved amenities, which were relevant considerations. The petition was dismissed on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468992</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>