47 1 H is violative both of Art.
On the other hand, it was companytended on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the provision companytained in Sec.
A numberice was ordered to be issued to the respondent and it was directed that the petition be finally disposed of at this stage as the only question raised is one of law and numberinvestigation of facts is necessary.
2880 82/1978.
47 I H of the Act.
This companytention found favour with the Regional Transport Authority and the renewal of permits was refused to the petitioner and the permits were granted to the Corporation.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 6.4.1983 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Special Appeal No.
That was the only companytention canvassed before the learned Single Judge which did number find favour with him as well as the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court.
An objection was raised by the Corporation that as the route in question is an inter State route, it is entitled to permit in preference to the petitioner in view of the provision companytained in Sec.
And these temporary permits were further renewed for a period of 4 months Thereafter the application of the petitioner for renewal of his permits and the application for stage carriage permit made by the Corporation were taken up for companysideration.
6605/83.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
This decision was questioned in a writ petition filed by the present petitioner in which the only companytention raised was that the preference was accorded to the Corporation for grant of a permit under Sec.
Shanti Bhushan and B.N. Mathur, S.K.Jain S.D. Sharma for the Respondents in Writ Petitions.
58, the petitioner is entitled to renewal of his permits in preference to the Corporation, which has made an application for a fresh permit.
Hence the petitioner filed this petition for special leave.
Pending the companysideration of the application for renewal of permits, petitioner was granted temporary permits under Sec.
WITH Special Leave Petition Nos.
K.Venugopal and Mukul Mudgal for the Petitioner in SLP.
9678 9680 of 1982.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
19 1 g and is thus companystitutionally invalid.
S. Vaidyanathan for the Petitioner in SLP Civil Nos.
The application of the petitioner for the renewal of his permits accordingly was taken up for companysideration on April 30, 1981.
The temporary permits were thus to expire on May 20, 1981.
Shanti Bhushan, S.K. Jain and B.M. Mathur for the Respondents in SLP.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 4th October, 1982 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. In this group of special leave petitions and writ petitions, companystitutional validity of Sec.
The petitioner again applied for renewal of the permits on December 29, 1980.
47 I H of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Act for short directly or indirectly figures.
8 via Barrod and Shahjahanpur 28 k.ms.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale and A.V. Rangam for the Respondents in SLP Civil Nos.
9678 9680 of 1982.
This application was as usual advertised.
6605/83.
9678 9680 of 1982.
62 for a period of four months companymencing from the date of the expiry of the earlier permit.
74 of 1983.
6605 of 1983.
The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, fifth respondent Corporation for short made an application to the Regional Transport Authority on April 20, 1981 for stage carriage permit on the aforementioned route.
A portion of the route from Bahror to National Highway No.
14 and Art.
6605/83 Petitioner Sher Singh is the holder of a stage carriage permit on Behror Rewari via Barrod, Shahjahanpur inter State route.
N. Kacker and A.K. Panda for the Petitioners in Writ Petitions.
9600 9601 9759 9760 of 1983.
AND Write Petition Nos.
