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

2001 Supreme(All) 120

S. K. SEN, S. RAFAT ALAM
CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF GORAKHPUR EDUCATION SOCIETY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUP BANERJEE, CHANDRA SHEKHAR SINGH

( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Aroop Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chandra Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) IN the instant writ petition the petitioners claim that it is a recognized educational institution and as such the provision for permit under Section 66 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the act) is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. Section 66 (3) (h) of the Act specifically mentions7 the category of the transport vehicle for which permit shall not be required. Section 66 (1) and 66 (3) (h) of the Act provides as under :66. Necessity for permits- (1), No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used:provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit





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