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

1965 Supreme(All) 161

G.D.SAHGAL
Masi Ullah – Appellant
Versus
State Tribunal Appellate U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Iqbal Ali and Mohd. Iqbal, for Petitioner; Standing Counsel, for Opposite Parties.

ORDER :- These two writ petitions raise a common question of law and so they have been heard together.

2. The petitioner in writ petition No. 581 of 1963 held a stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Tikaitganj Babaganj route. He applied for the renewal of his permit and by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, opposite party No. 2 dated the 7th of March, 1962, it was allowed to be renewed for a further period of three years on condition that the petitioner shall place 1952 model or later model on the route.

3. The petitioner of writ petition No. 582 of 1963 also was the holder of a permanent stage carriage permit on the Lucknow-Mall route. In his case also at the time of the renewal of the permit a condition was imposed on the 7th of March, 1962 by the opposite party No. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, that he shall place 1960 or later model on the route.

4. Both the petitioners made appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, opposite party No. 1. But their appeals were dismissed. It is in these circumstances that these two writ petitions have been filed.

5. The prayer is for the issue of a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the orders of opposite party No.


































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