K.M.JOSEPH, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Regional Transport Authority – Appellant
Versus
Shaju Etc. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Section 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enables replacement of the vehicle covered under an existing transport permit by another vehicle of the same nature. Can a State Government make Rules, enabling the road transport authority to reject an application for replacement if the proposed vehicle is older than the one covered under the existing permit? This is the question we are tasked to answer. For the analysis and the reasoning that will follow, we have held that Rule 174(2)(c) of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules,1989 is valid and salutary and does not go beyond the scope of Section 83. We will first refer to the basic facts and the statutory provisions before analyses and determination.
Facts:
3.1 The Respondent was granted a stage carriage operator permit, P.St. 7/362/2012 dated 7.5.2017 in respect of vehicle number KL-41L-1017, a 38Seater, 2016 model by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘Authority’) to conduct transport service on the route Pattimattam-Kakkanad in Kerala. On 19.5.2017, the Res
Geeta B.Rao v. Secretary, Karnataka State Transport Authority
S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India (2018) 13 SCC 532 (Judgment dated 30.11.2017) – Relied [Para 18.1]
Subhash Chandra and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1980) 2 SCC 324 – Relied [Para 19.2]
S.K. Bhatia and Ors.v. State of U.P and Ors. (1983) 4 SCC 194 – Relied [Para 19.2]
Madan Singh Shekhawat v. Union of India (1999) 6 SCC 459
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.