Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Virendra Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. Min. Of Transport & Anr. - WRIT - A No. 18453 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 5663 (8 March 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18453 of 2005

Virendra Singh & Anr.


State of U.P. & Ors,.


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur dated 14th December, 2004 rejecting the application of the petitioners for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route namely Sundous-Kishni-via Luckna-Bharthana on the ground that it was a part of the notified route.

Learned Standing Counsel Sri C.K. Rai, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sheela Devi Vs. Jaspal Singh (1999) 1 SCC 209, wherein it has been held that if the order impugned is revisable, writ petition should not be entertained. Reliance has also been placed upon a Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in G. Veerappalillai Proprietor, Sathi Vilas Bus Service, Porayar, Tanjore District Madras Vs. Raman & Raman Ltd. Kumbakonam, Tanjore district & Ors,. AIR 1952 SC 192 wherein while dealing with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Apex Court held that if the Statute itself has provided for a remedy of appeal and revision under Sections 64 and 64-A against the order of the Regional Transport Authority/State Transport Authority granting or refusing the permits on a route, the Writ Court cannot taken up itself the task of Authorities concerned and it is always better for the person aggrieved to avail of the remedy under the Act.

Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act 1988') provides for a remedy of appeal in such cases particularly where the application for grant of permit on a route is rejected. However, Section 103 (3) of the Act 1988 provides that no appeal shall lie in case the application for grant of permit is refused on the ground that it was a notified route. The said provision, however, does not takeaway the right of the applicant in such a case to maintain the revision.

In view of the above, as the petitioners have approached this Court without availing the remedy available under the Statute before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petitioners are, however, entitled to avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and in case they present the memo of revision within 30 days from today, we request the learned Tribunal to entertain the revision on merits and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 8.3.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.