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

1974 Supreme(All) 304

R. L. GULATI
Jagdish Chandra – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
L. P. Nithani and C. P. Ghurdyal, Advocates, for the Petitioners; S.C, For the Respondents

JUDGMENT

R. L. Gutati, J. - The petitioners in this and in the connected writ petition own and ply public carrier vehicles for transporting goods to areas comprising district Pithoragarh and onwards. The second respondent, namely, the Municipal Board, Pithoragarh (hereinafter referred to as the Board) made certain amendments in the Bye-laws of the Board by a notification No. 42/23-242 dated October 14, 1970 levying entry and parking fee, halting charges etc. on the vehicles passing through the territorial limits of the Board. This notification has been challenged in these two writ petitions and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Earlier the Deputy Commissioner, Pithoragarh by a notification No. 1052/23-197 dated 5th March, 1965, issued under Sec. 298 (2) List I A. H. B. of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916 framed bye-laws in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 301 (2) of the said Act. This notification is material and is reproduced below :-

"Bye-laws u/s 301 (2) of the said Act. The motor vehicles, cars shall park at the motor stand and shall not park in any other place unless permitted by the Board.

2. For loading and unloading purposes the motor v

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