Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Girdhari vs Regional Transport Authority And Ors. on 6 February, 1970
In respect of the aforesaid preliminary objection, Mr. Vyas referred to two decisions of this Court, namely Girdhari v. Regional Transport Authority 1970 Raj LW 465 and Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur 1970 Raj LW 515 = (AIR 1971 Raj 226). In the case of Girdhari it was laid down by a Division Bench of this Court that the remedy by way of revision under Section 64-A of the Act was a specific legal remedy and the said remedy was fully efficacious.
Jairamdas vs Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur ... on 12 November, 1956
In Jagdish Prasad's case it was observed that in Jai Ram Das's case (AIR 1957 Raj 162) the existence of a temporary need was established and on that ground the aforesaid case was distinguished. In the present case, I do not find that the Regional Transport Authority has come to a definite conclusion that the existence of a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 (1) (c) of the Act was established. Merely because a temporary need may co-exist with a permanent need, it could not lead to the conclusion that whenever there is a permanent need a temporary need should always be presumed to exist as well. There can be no such presumption in law, but facts must be ascertained by the R. T. A. and reasons must be given by that Authority, if it came to the conclusion that a particular temporary need did also exist along with the permanent need. Merely because filling of permanent vacancies, which were caused not on account of cancellation of existing permits or the discontinuance of existing services, but on account of the increase in the limit of permits on the route, was likely to take some time, it cannot be the basis for holding that a particular temporary need existed. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the grant of temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was not justified and the conclusion of the R. T. A. that because the scope of permits on the route has been increased and two more permanent permits will have to be granted and, therefore, a particular temporary need existed is merely based on conjecture and not on facts placed before and considered by that Authority.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur ... on 28 January, 1970
In respect of the aforesaid preliminary objection, Mr. Vyas referred to two decisions of this Court, namely Girdhari v. Regional Transport Authority 1970 Raj LW 465 and Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur 1970 Raj LW 515 = (AIR 1971 Raj 226). In the case of Girdhari it was laid down by a Division Bench of this Court that the remedy by way of revision under Section 64-A of the Act was a specific legal remedy and the said remedy was fully efficacious.
1