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

1961 Supreme(Kar) 67

B.M.KALAGATE, A.R.SOMNATH IYER
K. SIDDALINGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE APPELLATE TRIPUNKI – Respondent


Somnath Iyer, J.

( 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





















































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