KANUBHAI ATMARAM CHUDASMA v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 64(1)(a)
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.K.KESHOTE Date of decision: 04/12/96 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)The matter was called out for hearing in the first round then in the second round in first sitting and in third round in the second sitting, but none put appearance on behalf of the petitioner. (cid:9)Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Special Civil Application. The petitioner applied for grant of auto rickshaw permit for auto rickshaw No. GTH 3997 which has been declined by R.T.O. under the order dated 4-10-1986. Feeling aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner filed appeal under sec.64(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gujarat State at Ahmedabad. The appeal came to be dismissed by the appellate authority under its order dated 1st July, 1987. Hence this Special Civil Application. (cid:9)The permit has been refused to the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle which was to ply under the said permit was ten years old model. The appellate Tribunal has not interfered with the matter. Now this vehicle would have become an old model of about twenty years and as such no permit can be granted for the said vehicle. In view of this fact, nothing substantial survives in this Special Civil Application. Otherwise also the nonappearance of the petitioner shows that he is also not interested in this matter. (cid:9)Taking into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, this Special Civil Application fails and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted by this court stands vacated. ********** zgs/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 64(1)(a).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 04 Dec 1996. The bench was S K KESHOTE.
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.