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

1974 Supreme(AP) 51

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
Mohd. Basha – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Regional Transport Authority – Respondent


CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners in these four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution are owners of Motor Vehicles hired from time to time as contract carriages. They contend that hitherto they used to apply for the grant of special per-mite under Section 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the prescribed form PTOVA and that special permits used to be granted in the prescribed form PTOV. Neither the rules nor the prescribed forms require them to furnish the names of all the passengers who propose to utilize the contract carriage under the special permit. It was never considered necessary. Recently the Regional Transport Authorities of the District of Krishna, Kurnool, Guntur and West Godavari, have started insisting on the applicants for special permits submitting along with the applications for special permits complete lists of passengers proposed to be carried by the contract carriages under the special permits to be issued. The petitioners object to the insistence of the Transport Authorities to furnish a list of passengers. They have filed these applications under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the Transport Authorities not to insist on the petit







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