B.M.KALAGATE, A.R.SOMNATH IYER
K. SIDDALINGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE APPELLATE TRIPUNKI – Respondent
( 1 ) THE petitioner obtained a permit to operate his stage carriage between Kunigal and Tumkur. The District Magistrate, Tumkur, who was then exercising the powers of a Regional Transport authority under the Motor Vehicles Act permitted him to leave Kunigal at 3,50 P. M. This was done by an order made by him on October 16, 1950. Respondent 4, who was another operator was, in respect of his service, permitted to leave Kunigal at 3. 45. P. M.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the Petitioner by its resolution which it passed on February 25, 1954, the regional Transport Authority directed the petitioner to leave Kunigal at 3. 45 P. M. instant of 3. 30 p. M. although, according to the timings originally assigned he had to leave Kunigal only at 3. 45 p. M. On behalf of respondent 4, Mr. Venkatanarasimhachar does not admit that by the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Tumkur, on February 25, 1954, the timings originally assigned to the petitioner were altered. His contention is that by that resolution, the regional Transport Authority merely declined to make a carnation in the timings originally assigned to the petitioner. To this aspect, I will advert at the app
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.