Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.08 seconds)Section 72 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 89 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 152 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Rameshwar And Ors vs Jot Ram & Ors on 18 September, 1975
20.In Rameshwar and others Vs. Jot Ram and others reported AIR 1976 SC 49, the concept of moulding of relief was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
The Limitation Act, 1963
Rajesh D. Darbar & Ors vs Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni & Ors on 6 August, 2003
18.Inasmuch as, in my considered view, it is clear that the grant of permit even though creates a statutory right on the part of the holder to run his stage carriage in the specified route, the same could be even termed as vested right, at the same time, it is subject to following certain procedures. Law is well settled that the courts can always mould the relief especially in consonance with the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is based on the convenience of people predominantly involving public interest. Of course, incidentally, protecting the private interest also is necessary like that of the stage carriage holders subject to various conditions with which the permit is given. Ultimately, when the second respondent Regional Transport Authority is empowered to alter the conditions of permit it cannot be said that the Tribunal sitting as an Appellate Authority constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act need not be taken into account the convenience of the public as well as the object of the Act while deciding on appeal about the various in the stage carriage permits. Even assuming that the Appellate Tribunal cannot take the role of Regional Transport Authority who is competent to issue permit as per section 72 of the Act, certainly it is open to the tribunal being the Appellate Authority to direct the Regional Transport Authority to study the existing situation regarding the permit condition and convenience of the public and pass orders, if ultimately the tribunal comes to a conclusion that there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the second respondent, dated 14.09.2000. It is in this regard, the first respondent tribunal functioning as per the ambit of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder by State and Central Governments, in my considered view, is entitled to take note of the object of the Act and convenience of the public when it relates to the issuance of permit to the stage carriage which is public service vehicle per the Section 2(35) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The judicial principles that the subsequent development would enable the courts to mould the relief if the same is in exceptional circumstances and are not prohibited by a statute was the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh D.Darbar and others Vs. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and others reported in 2003 (7) SCC 219 where the Supreme Court has crystalized the concept in the following words: