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

1992 Supreme(Ker) 298

PAREED PILLAY
Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
R. T. O. Malappuram – Respondent


Judgment :-

Petitioner challenges the conditions in Ext.P-1 order issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. The offensive conditions, according to him, are that he should not curtail any portion of the route or apply for another route curtailing/ varying any portion of the route already granted and that the permit would stand automatically cancelled as and when the vehicle causes an accident. Contention of the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority (first respondent) has no jurisdiction to impose such conditions.

2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the first respondent is vested with jurisdiction to impose the aforesaid conditions.

3. Section 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act enumerates the general conditions attaching to all permits. S.84 empowers the transport authority, which granted a permit to cancel or suspend it for particular periods as it thinks fit on conditions enumerated thereunder. S.71 provides for the procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering the applications for stage carriage permit. S.72 provides that subject to the provisions of S.71 a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it



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