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

1996 Supreme(All) 603

M.KATJU, B.S.CHAUHAN
RAMPATI JAISWAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.L.Saunders

B. S. CHAUHAN, J.


( 1 ) BY this common judgment we dispose of all the above mentioned writ petitions. The facts involved in the instant petitions are eye openers and reveal as to what extent the process of Court is abused by litigants to distort the law. This is a unique example where the relief has been sought in contravention of the statutory provisions. On behalf of the petitioners submissions have been made only on the basis of a loophole in the statutory provisions without realising that the Parliament had plugged the said loophole more than two and a half decades ago.

( 2 ) IN writ petition No. 14924 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 45 1/rta/96 on Allahabad-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGH 673, in Writ Petition No. 14925 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 1447/rta/96 on Pratapgarh-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UGH 786, in writ petition No. 15232 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 1450/rta/96 on Allahabad-Kunda route and plying vehicle No. UP 42/a-6782 and in writ petition No. 15235 of 1996 petitioner is holding permanent stage carriage permit No. 1446/ RTA/96 on Pratapgarh






































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