SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(AP) 937

G.BIKSHAPATHY
A. NARAYANA RAO – Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SECUNDERABAD – Respondent


G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions common questions of law are involved and hence, therefore they are decided by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions iswhether any permission of the authorities is required for reducing the seating capacity in the contract carriage vehicles.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix in the nutshell is that the petitioners are owning thelight Motor Vehicles having seating capacity of more than 6 excluding the driver. In some cases, the petitioners have purchased the vehicles from the manufacturers which are having seating capacity of more than 6 passengers excluding the driver. They intend to run the vehicles as contract carriages and also under All India Tourist Taxi Cab Permits under Section 88 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The stand of the petitioners is that they have effected necessary adaptions in the seating arrangement by reducing the seating to 6 excluding the driver so as to give better tourist facilities and that they may be permitted to adopt the seating capacity of 7 in all to run under All India tourist Motor Cab Permits or contract carriages as the case may be. Some of the app











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top