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

1975 Supreme(Raj) 42

LODHA
Kandhari Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Raj Narayan Munshi, for Petitioner; Ram Raj Vyas, for Non-Petitioner No. 3 & 4

LODHA, J.—The dispute in this case is between two rival claimants for grant of permit to ply stage carriage on Chittorgarh-Banswara route via Shambhupara, Nimba-hera. Chhotisadri, Dhamotra, Pratapgarh, Peoplerwoot. Khamera and Ghatol. This route was surveyed on the application of the petitioner Kandhari Babu. Originally scope of three Buses with one return service was fixed and the petitioner was granted a temporary permit to ply on this route. Later on, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, revised the scope and fixed it as five Buses with two return services by its Resolution dated 18 April, 1973. By a Notification dated 10 May, 1973 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 14 June, 1973, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur invited applications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on this route and the petitioner submitted his application on 4 July, 1973. The non-petitioner No. 3 Rooplal, who is the contesting non-petitioner in the present writ petition, also applied for one permit on this route. In all, there were 29 applicants including the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 3, Rooplal (who, for the sake of brevity, will, hereinafter, be referred as to t













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