MASI ULLAH Vs. STATE TRIBUNAL APPELLATE
LAWS(ALL)-1965-10-10
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (FROM: LUCKNOW)
Decided on October 21,1965

MASI ULLAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE TRIBUNAL APPELLATE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MOHAMMED WASIM BEG VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1979-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA GOPAL VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AGRA [LAWS(ALL)-1990-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV ADHAR YADAV VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
SARJU BALA KUSHIARY VS. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVT OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1971-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JODHPUR VS. SITA RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-322] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAMBER DASS VS. S T A T AND ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-1982-7-28] [REFERRED]
C.K. BALAKRISHNAN VS. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-874] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

G.D. Sahgal, J. - (1.)THESE two writ petitions raise a common question of law and so they have been heard together.
(2.)THE petitioner in writ petition No. 581 of 1963 held a stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Tikaitganj Babaganj route. He applied for the renewal of his permit and by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, opposite party No. 2 dated the 7th of March, 1962. It was allowed to be renewed for a further period of three years on condition that the petitioner shall place 1952 model or later model on the route.
The petitioner of writ petition No. 582 of 1963 also was the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Mall route. In his case also at the time of the renewal of the permit a condition was imposed on the 7th of March, 1962 by the opposite party No. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, that he shall place 1960 or later model on the route.

Both the petitioners made appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, opposite party No. 1. But their appeals were dismissed. It is in these circumstances that these two writ petitions have been filed.

(3.)THE prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the orders of opposite party No. 1 dated the 21st of August, 1963, dismissing the appeal and of opposite party No. 2 dated the 7th of March, 1962, granting permit imposing condition aforesaid. In writ petition No. 581 of 1963 there is also a prayer to the effect that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Regional Transport Authority to allow the petitioner to operate his bus so long as it was found fit as required by the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. In writ petition No. 582 of 1963 the prayer is that the opposite party No. 2 be commanded to allow the petitioner to ply his vehicle. Apart from these two prayers there is a general prayer for the grant of such writ, direction or order which the Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case to pass.
The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 did not justify the imposing of the condition of the type that has been imposed in the two cases requiring the petitioner in writ petition No. 581 of 1963 to place on the route ft bus of 1952 or later model and in the case of writ petition No. 582 of 1963 requiring the petitioner to place on the route bus of 1960 or later model.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.