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

1980 Supreme(AP) 67

RAMACHANDRA RAO
P. V. Sitarama Swami – Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal – Respondent


( 1 ) IN these three writ petitions as common question arises, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners herein who are operators of stage carriages, applied for renewal of their permits under section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but those applications were rejected on the ground that their history sheets contained more than four entries relating to offences committed during the preceding 24 months in respect Of the permit for which renewal is sought. This order of rejection of renewal was confirmed by the State transport Appellate Tribunal.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised it is necessary to notice the relevant changes in rule 212 of the Andhra Pradesh motor Vehicles Rules and the amendments made thereto from time to time. Rule 212 as originally framed in 1964 laid down the guiding principle for the grant, renewal, variation, suspension or cancellation of stage carriage permits. Rule 212 (1) (in) (2) as framed in 1964 provided that if the history sheet was not clean and contained more than six entires relating to offences of the nature mentioned in that rule, committed within 24 months preceding the grant of the permit, the applicant would be s















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