Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing A. Viswanathan vs State Transport Appellate ... on 6 February, 1987

Sri Gajanana Motor Transport Co. vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ... on 13 March, 1997

"7. Under Section 62 of the Act it is permissible to a Regional Transport Authority to issue temporary permits to be effective for a limited period not exceeding four months without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 of the Act. Such temporary permits can be issued only for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as in relation to and for fairs and religious gatherings or for the purpose of a seasonal business or to meet a particular temporary need or pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. The Regional Transport Authority cannot grant a temporary permit for a route or area specified in an application for grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 of the Act, during the pendency of the application. That section further provides that a temporary permit issued under that section shall in no case be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal."
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Transport Authority And Ors. vs Nirmalendu Das And Ors. on 10 April, 1989

12. We have indicated earlier our definite views on the point involved or on the powers of this Court, in a case of the present nature and we think, that before leaving the matter, we should refer to certain cases as cited at the Bar. To establish, how, when and in what circumstances and manner, a temporary permit can and should be granted, Mr. Seth referred to the case of A. Viswanathan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, , where it has been observed that a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes of reasons mentioned in els. (a) to (d) of Section 62 (1) of the Act or the circumstances referred to in Sub-section (2) thereof. In the facts of this case, agreeing with the submissions of Mr. Seth, we find and hold that the requirements of Section 62 have not been satisfied and even on the mass representation dt. 20th Nov. 1988, which has been disclosed in Annexure-E to the petitioner of motion, this Court was powerless and if at all, the Authorities concerned only, could have determined on the need and not this Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abani Kumar Bhattacharjya vs Presiding Officer, State Transport ... on 9 May, 1989

This principle has also been elaborated in another decision (A. Viswanathan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pandicherry and Anr.). It has clearly been observed that where the State Transport Authority does not take steps to issue regular permits on several routes, even though the need for issuing those permits is established beyond doubt, but on the other hand it continues issuing temporary permits for years together in respect of those routes, the persons be longing to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and the economically weaker section of the community would obviously suffer disadvantages by such procedure adopted by the State Transport Authority. The revalidation or renewal of a temporary permit or extension of the period for which a temporary permit is issued is not contemplated in law. This point has been stressed further in .
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hira Ram Toofani vs The State Transport Authority, Bihar, ... on 11 April, 1988

12. The learned counsel has in this connection referred to the case of A. Viswanathan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, AIR 1-987 SC 731 and drew my attention to para 3 of the said judgment, in the said judgment the practice of the Transport Authorities, to issue temporary permits repeatedly was deprecated inter alia on the ground that thereby the interest of persons belonging to the Scheduled Caites, Scheduled Tribes or economically weaker sections of the community had been prejudiced as they were notable to enjoy the benefit of the reservation.
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M. Ramaswamy vs Karnataka State Transport Authority, ... on 10 September, 1998

"The decision relied on by Sri G. Ramaswamy in A. Viswanathan v State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, lays down the law and we approve of it to be the correct law; under Section 62(1) of the Act, if temporary permit is granted, it outlives its existence on expiry of four months and it cannot be intended to be continuous one for a number of years except when permanent permit was given and application for renewal was pending as envisaged in Section 62(1). If any renewal is to be made to a temporary permit, it will be a violation of the statute".
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Company ... vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ... on 15 July, 1998

In A. Viswanathan v State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry and Another, the Supreme Court has observed that issue of a temporary permit repeatedly is violative of the letter and spirit of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. In the instant case, it is clear that successive grants of temporary permits to the third respondent is clearly against the letter and spirit of Section 87 of the Act. The letter of the MLA referred to in the impugned permit appears to have influenced the grant of the temporary permit without even an examination of the route applied for was a notified one or not.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - S R Murthy - Full Document

Sannaveeranna G. vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ... on 16 April, 1998

12. Learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. VISHWANATHAN v. STATE, PONDICHERRY . In that case Supreme Court condemned issue of temporary permits repeatedly though there is a need for issue of regular permits. In the present case the same is not the situation, and facts of present case is quite different from facts of that case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S R Bannurmath - Full Document

G. Sannaveeranna vs The Secretary, Regional Transport ... on 16 April, 1998

12. Learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Viswanathan v State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. In that case Supreme Court condemned issue of temporary permits repeatedly though there is a need for issue of regular permits. In the present case the same is not the situation, and facts of present case is quite different from facts of that case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S R Bannurmath - Full Document
1   2 Next