Skip to content


Y. Mahaboob Sheriff and Sons, Y. Mahaboob Sheriff and ors. and S. ShamsoddIn and ors. Vs. Mysore State Transport Authority, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles;Constitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1960SC321; [1960]2SCR146
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 32, 226 and 227; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 58, 58(1), 68C and 68F
AppellantY. Mahaboob Sheriff and Sons, Y. Mahaboob Sheriff and ors. and S. ShamsoddIn and ors.
RespondentMysore State Transport Authority, Bangalore and ors.
Books referredHalsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 11; Bernard Schwartz on American Administrative Law; Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, Vol. 11,
Excerpt:
.....and respondent's application - authority met again and passed petitioner's application granting renewal for one year - petitioners appealed before high court contending renewal as entitled for at least 3 years renewal under section 58 of the act and its denial violates article 19 (1) (g) - appeal dismissed in limine - authority granted permits to respondent and rejected renewal application of petitioners - appeal before high court against order of authority - appeal dismissed - appeal before supreme court - authority to comply with sections 58 (1) (a) and 58 (2) of the act so as to give renewal at least for three years - held, orders against renewal of permits quashed. - section 152: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] amendment of decree - suit for partition decreed - amendment..........of the law as laid down in s. 58(1) (a) read with s. 58(2) in the order of renewal made by it in favour of the petitioners on december 15, 1958. the petitioners will get one set of costs from the mysore government road transport department which alone has contested these petitions. in petition no. 76 of 1959. 39. in accordance with the opinion of the majority, we allow the petition and quash that part of the order complained against which specified the renewal of the permits upto september 30, 1959, and direct the authorities to comply with the requirements of the law as laid down in s. 58(1)(a) read with s. 58(2) in the order of renewal made by them in favour of the petitioners on april 30, 1959. 40. the petitioners will get their costs, except hearing costs as the hearing was common.....
Judgment:
ORDER

S OF COURT.

In Petitions Nos. 54 and 75 of 1959.

38. In accordance with the opinion of the majority, we allow the petitions and quash that part of the order complained against which specified the renewal of the permits upto March 31, 1959, and direct the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, to comply with the requirements of the law as laid down in s. 58(1) (a) read with s. 58(2) in the order of renewal made by it in favour of the petitioners on December 15, 1958. The petitioners will get one set of costs from the Mysore Government Road Transport Department which alone has contested these petitions.

In Petition No. 76 of 1959.

39. In accordance with the opinion of the majority, we allow the petition and quash that part of the order complained against which specified the renewal of the permits upto September 30, 1959, and direct the Authorities to comply with the requirements of the law as laid down in s. 58(1)(a) read with s. 58(2) in the order of renewal made by them in favour of the petitioners on April 30, 1959.

40. The petitioners will get their costs, except hearing costs as the hearing was common with Petition No. 75 of 1959, from the Mysore Government Road Transport Department which alone has opposed the petition.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //