MANGAL TRAVELS v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 08 Jan 2002
- Bench
- R K ABICHANDANI
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 63, 63(6)
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ Date of decision: 08/01/2002 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI)
1.(cid:9)No one appears in the matter. The petitioner has prayed for a direction that the opponents be restrained from delegating powers to their Secretaries or to the Regional Transport Officers functioning for the respective regions under their jurisdiction under Rule 68(1) to (4) or under sub-rule (1)(a)(xi) of Rule 69 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, to grant or refuse to grant special permits under section 63(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2.(cid:9)Though the petitioner has made a grievance that the opponents, who are regional transport authorities of Ahmedabad city region and North Gujarat region, have delegated their powers to their Secretaries, there is nothing placed on record to show that any orders delegating such powers have been made. Under section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it is, inter alia, provided that, except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region. Under sub-section (6) of section 63, it has been provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in relation to a public service vehicle for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. If any error has been committed in signing any order, it would not imply that there has been a general delegation of powers by the Authority in favour of the Secretary. The petitioner has not challenged any orders which may have been issued under the purported exercise of delegated powers, nor has he challenged or even brought on record any directions showing delegation of powers of the Regional Transport Authority in favour of any unauthorised entity.
3.(cid:9)There is therefore no substance in this petition and it is rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. JANUARY 08, 2002(cid:9) (cid:9)[R.K.ABICHANDANI, J.] (cid:9) (cid:9)[K.A.PUJ, J. ] (cid:9) (cid:9) parmar*
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 63, 63(6).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 08 Jan 2002. The bench was R K ABICHANDANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.