Skip to content


Asharaf Vs. Rta Jodhpur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1532/81
Judge
Reported in1981WLN(UC)347
AppellantAsharaf
RespondentRta Jodhpur and ors.
Cases ReferredJ.N. Wahal v. Sheikh Mahfooz
Excerpt:
.....act, 1939 - section 57(3)--grant of non-temporary permit--limit of permits increased from 14 to 76 permits--held, application for grant of non-temporary should not have been rejected.;writ partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the..........of the supreme court in j.n. wahal v. sheikh mahfooz : [1970]2scr243 , i am of the view that the regional transport authority, jodhpur, should not have proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner after the increase in the limit of permits on the route was made by the order dated august 10, 1981. as the learned counsel for the parties have agreed to the aforesaid course being adopted, it is directed that the order of the regional transport authority, jodhpur, dated august 10,1981, is maintained so far as it increases the limit of the permits on the route from 14 to 16 permits, but is set aside in so far as the said order proceeds to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route. as the petitioner's application has.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta Actg, C.J.

1. Learned conusel for the parties have agreed that the orde of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, dated August 10, 1981 in so far as it proceeds to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit may be set aside. It has also seen brought to my notice that the same application of the petitioner has subsequently been published in the Rejasthan Raj Patra dated November 3, 1981 and objections have also been invited in respect thereof, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. In view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in J.N. Wahal v. Sheikh Mahfooz : [1970]2SCR243 , I am of the view that the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, should not have proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner after the increase in the limit of permits on the route was made by the order dated August 10, 1981. As the learned Counsel for the parties have agreed to the aforesaid course being adopted, it is directed that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, dated August 10,1981, is maintained so far as it increases the limit of the permits on the route from 14 to 16 permits, but is set aside in so far as the said order proceeds to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route. As the petitioner's application has already been published and objections hive also been invited in respect thereof, there can be no difficulty in the consideration of the application of the petitioner for grant of a permit, along with consideration of the other applications for grant of permits on the route, which have been received in pursuance of the notification of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, under Sections 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, on August 10, 1981, is set aside only to the extent that it has proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit. The parties are left to bear their own costs.


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