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

2000 Supreme(Cal) 25

BARIN GHOSH
DEBASHIS GANGULY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.BERA, PRABHAT KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, T.K.SEN GUPTA

BARIN GHOSH, J.

( 1 ) THE scheme of the 1988 Act, as appears to me, authorises the Transport Authority to formulate a route from one termini to another provided one of the terminis falls within its jurisdiction. Once such route is formulated, such Transport Authority can grant permit to ply stage carriage on the said formulated route. If, however, the route in question falls in the jurisdiction of the another authority, counter-signature of such another Authority is required. In order to obtain such counter-signature, steps as are required to be taken for obtaining a route permit are also required to be taken. In the event, no such counter-signature is obtained, the route permit would not be valid within the territorial jurisdiction of the Transport Authority whose counter-signature was required but has not been obtained. The same principle is also applicable in relation to inter-State routes. If a State has formulated the route from one stage to another, that State may grant a route permit on the said route but that route permit will not be valid in the said State if the other State does not grant counter-signature on the route permit. In order to obtain such counter-signature fro








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