Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)Section 72 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
M/S. Bundelkhand Motor Transport ... vs Behari Lal Chiaurasia And Another on 17 August, 1965
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.
Benny Mathew vs Alexander Joseph on 14 November, 2002
18. As regards the judgment submitted by the learned counsel
for the contesting respondents, viz: Benny Mathew v. Alexander Joseph
[2003 KHC 83], the same also follows the principle in the judgment
noticed above and had only held that a permit granted by one authority
for operation of a vehicle within the region of another authority shall not
2025:KER:53342
WP(C).19863 OF 2025 15
be valid unless it is countersigned or prior concurrence has been obtained
and in the facts of that case, though a permit was granted which was valid
for operation within the region of RTA Kannur, it was not valid in the
other regions because the permit was not countersigned by the
authorities of the other regions. Under such circumstances, it was held
that if a countersignature from the authority of a particular region is not
obtained, it cannot be said that the permit is valid over that region, and
thereby it is not a valid permit for operating on the entire route. This
again is on the principle that an invalid permit cannot be renewed on the
ground that a renewal application can be rejected only on the ground
specified under Section 81(4) of the Act, as 81(4) can have application
only when there is a valid permit submitted for renewal. The said
judgment in no way goes against the case set up by the petitioner.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs The Excise And Taxation Officer Cum ... on 1 February, 2023
13. It is also argued that the curtailment of the route in the
instant case was necessitated by the operation of law which occurred
between the grant of the permit and the issuance. Referring to the
provisions of the Act, in particular Section 103(2) and Section 72 of the
Act, it is argued that the findings in Ext.P13 cannot stand the test of law.
The second reason in Ext.P13 that there was no vehicle attached to the
permit from 2012 to 2019 is equally wrong, as Ext.P2 permit was valid only
till 19.06.2011, and there was no question of the permit "existing in
vacuum without a vehicle attached to it" as stated in Ext.P13. He also
relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee
Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer - cum- Assessing Authority and
2025:KER:53342
WP(C).19863 OF 2025 12
Others [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 95], M/s. Bundelkhand Motor
Transport Co. v. Behari Lal Chaurasia and Another (1966 KHC 450
SC), Abdul Gafoor, Proprietor, Shaheen Motor Service,
Channaryaptna v. State of Mysore and Others [1961 KHC 735 SC] and
of this Court in W.P(C) No.9012/2007, to support his contentions.
1