Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Bundelkhand Motor Transport ... vs Behari Lal Chiaurasia And Another on 17 August, 1965

Sudha Sasikumar vs The Regional Transport Authority on 18 July, 2025

17. As regards the argument of the respondents that the petitioner could not have operated without complying with the conditions imposed in Ext P2 to obtain concurrence from RTA Thrissur, as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and Another [1966 KHC 450], the permit granted by a competent authority for one region will not be valid in any other region unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport authority, but an inter regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the authority granting the permit has jurisdiction and when it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region, the permit becomes valid for the entire route. Therefore, the contention that the permit has no validity, whatever, until it is countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region cannot be accepted.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sahib Transport Service vs R. Balasubramaniam, Proprietor K. ... on 23 March, 1967

10. Learned Counsel urged that while a fiction is to be adopted for a particular purpose, the fiction must not be extended beyond its purpose, and its operation should be limited to the purpose specified. He points out that Section 58 (2) itself specifies the purpose for which a renewal application is to be deemed to be an application for permit. It is stated that it is in the matter of procedure as regards making of the application and disposal of it that it has to be treated as an application for a permit. While prescribing the procedure in Bundelkhand M. T. Co. v. Behari Lal , the Supreme Court points out that by Section 58 (2) (d):
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Punjab Sikh Regular Motor ... vs The Regional Transport ... on 15 October, 1965

rity, Bilaspur was alone competent to renew the countersignature of the permit. We accordingly hold that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur dated February 24, 1964 granting countersignature of the permit was illegal and ultra vires and was rightly quashed by the High Court by its order dated November 13, 1964. We, therefore, confirm- the order of the High Court, but for different reasons. We, however, desire to make it clear that our order does not affect the validity of the permit granted to the appellant by the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur in so far as it relates to the route within the limits of Bilaspur region. That is the ratio of the decision of this Court in M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and anr.(1) in which it was pointed out that inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the authority granting the permit has jurisdiction even though it is not countersigned by the proper Regional Transport Authority with regard to the portion of the route outside that region.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 29 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

State Of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. Etc on 11 October, 1977

This Court has expressed the view in the case of M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and another(1) followed in Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Modhapara v. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and another(2) that permits granted by one Regional Authority and counter-signed by another Regional Authority either in the same State or in different States are really different permits rolled into one. If the initial granting authority does not renew the permit for plying the vehicle within the, jurisdiction of another authority the latter by mere counter-signing the permit cannot empower the permit holder to ply the bus either in their region or another State. None of the Inter-State permits in these cases has been issued by any central authority in accordance with section 63A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 73 - Cited by 139 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Goverdhan Lal Dhawan vs State Of Bihar & Others on 27 July, 1988

In the instant case since there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules made by the State Government requiring the existence of such a prior agreement, it is difficult to hold that in the absence of such a prior agreement between the Regional Transport Authorities concerned an application for the grant of an inter-regional permit should not be taken up for consideration by a Regional Transport Authority which has the jurisdiction to grant it under section 45 of the Act. If a permit is issued by a Regional Transport Authority and it is not countersigned by the other Regional Transport Authority the permit will not be effective in the other region. What we have observed above is in accord with the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M/s. Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, Nowgaon v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and Another, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 485. In that case at Page 492 the Constitution Bench has observed thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

The Regional Transport Authority vs Mrs.Sudha Sasikumar

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. v. Behari Lal Chaurasia [AIR 1966 SC 455]. In the above Constitution Bench judgment, the Supreme Court held that under Section 63, a permit granted by the RTA of one region is not valid in any other region unless the permit has been countersigned by the RTA of the other region. The implication of the provision is that even an inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the authority granting the permit has jurisdiction and when it is countersigned by the RTA of the other region, the permit becomes valid for the entire route. The Constitution Bench observed that the contention that the permit has no validity until it is countersigned, cannot be agreed upon. In that case, it was found that though the counter signature was not W.A.No.149/2015 13 obtained, the permit is valid to operate between Jabalpur and the point at which the route entered the Rewa region and it can be considered as a regional permit. On this basis, it is argued that, at any rate, petitioner was entitled to have a renewal of permit within the District of Palakkad which alone has been permitted by the learned Single Judge in the interim order.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A Bhushan - Full Document
1