Skip to content


Janta Motors Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. S.T.A., Delhi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 797 of 1980 and 3309 and 4158 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984(1)SCALE820; 1984Supp(1)SCC711; 1984(16)LC699(SC)
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 63(3-A) and 63(3-B)
AppellantJanta Motors Pvt. Ltd. and ors.
RespondentS.T.A., Delhi and ors.
Excerpt:
.....dispute relating to refusal of grants or countersign permits to appellant on delhi-ghaziabad inter-state route - governments of two states agreed to fix strength of inter-state permits on route in question during hearing of case before high court - appeal dismissed as it was not pressed by appellants - though appeal dismissed but certain directions to be issued in interest of traveling public - both state governments directed to take further steps under sections 63 (3-a) and 63 (3-b) and all other provisions of law applicable to situation for finalizing such agreement in respect of route in question in accordance with law. - [a.p. sen,; baharul islam and; o. chinnappa reddy, jj.] a news item published in the blitz weekly of which the respondent was the editor, stated that the..........refusal to grant or counter-sign permits under the motor vehicles act on the delhi-ghaziabad inter-state route.2. before the high court dispute had arisen as to exact sanctioned strength of the permits on the route. during the course of hearing of these appeals under orders of the court the transport secretaries of the state of uttar pradesh and the union territory of delhi appeared before us and we directed them to amicably fix up by fresh agreement the strength of state carriage permits on this route. we have been informed that a meeting held on 7th april, 1984 and the two governments have agreed to fix the strength of the inter-state permits on this route at 60.3. when the appeals were taken up for final hearing mr. shanti bhushan for the appellants did not press the appeals. these.....
Judgment:

Ranganath Misra, J.

1. All the three appeals are by special leave and are directed against decisions of the Delhi.High Court. The dispute in each of these cases has arisen out of refusal to grant or counter-sign permits under the Motor Vehicles Act on the Delhi-Ghaziabad inter-State route.

2. Before the High Court dispute had arisen as to exact sanctioned strength of the permits on the route. During the course of hearing of these appeals under Orders of the Court the Transport Secretaries of the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Union Territory of Delhi appeared before us and we directed them to amicably fix up by fresh agreement the strength of State carriage permits on this route. We have been informed that a meeting held on 7th April, 1984 and the two Governments have agreed to fix the strength of the inter-State permits on this route at 60.

3. When the appeals were taken up for final hearing Mr. Shanti Bhushan for the appellants did not press the appeals. These appeals have, therefore, to be dismissed as not pressed. In the peculiar facts we direct parties to bear their own costs.

4. Even though the appeals are being dismissed as not pressed, we think it appropriate and in the interest of the travelling public that a direction should be given to both the Governments to take further steps as required under Section 63(3-A), and 63(3-B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and all other provisions of law applicable to the situation for finalising the inter-State agreement in respect of this route by giving effect to the agreement reached on 7th April, 1984 in accordance with law and all steps required by law to implement the same be taken within three months from today.

5. In view of the fact that the State Transport Authorities of the two Governments have accepted the position that there is great demand for transport facilities on these routes, we direct that until the inter- State agreement is finalised as directed above and steps are taken for grant of permits in respect of vacancies existing or created under the agreement, the Transport Authorities of Union Territory of Delhi should reconsider the decision in the matter of counter-signature of existing permits issued by the Transport Authorities in Uttar Pradesh. If there be any permit already granted by the Transport Authority of Delhi, the Transport Authority in Uttar Pradesh may similarly consider the question of counter-signature. If there be any counter-signature made in the manner indicated above it would be as a purely temporary measure for the convenience of the travelling public and would not confer any right for claiming preferential treatment in the matter of filling of vacancies on permanent basis. The counter-signature referred to above if and made shall remain valid only upto grant of permanent permits on this inter-State route.


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