ABDUL HAI KHAN versus SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSE AND ORS.

ABDUL HAI KHAN versus SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSE AND ORS.

Since the scheme is only a partial exclusion scheme, a private operator who is himself operating on a nationalized route due to modification of the scheme is not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus restraining the authority from granting permits to other private operators on that route or on routes overlapping portions of it; the operator cannot enjoy a monopoly over operation of the route. Relief in the writ petition is not maintainable when parties alleged to have been granted permits in excess or State Undertaking are not impleaded.

Parties
Appellant: Abdul Hai Khan; Respondent: Subal Chandra Ghose; Respondent: State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Disposal of Appeals After Division Bench and Single Judge Orders
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge judgment restored.
Legal Topics
Stage Carriage Permit, Nationalization Scheme, Motor Vehicles Act
Administrative Law Transport Law Stage Carriage Permit Nationalization Scheme Motor Vehicles Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Hai Khan

Appellant

Subal Chandra Ghose

Respondent

State of West Bengal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Disposal of Appeals After Division Bench and Single Judge Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellants are entitled to a writ of mandamus to restrain grant of permits to other private operators on routes overlapping nationalized routes
  2. 2 Whether the scheme notified under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a total exclusion or partial exclusion scheme

Ratio Decidendi

Since the scheme is only a partial exclusion scheme, a private operator who is himself operating on a nationalized route due to modification of the scheme is not entitled to seek a writ of mandamus restraining the authority from granting permits to other private operators on that route or on routes overlapping portions of it; the operator cannot enjoy a monopoly over operation of the route. Relief in the writ petition is not maintainable when parties alleged to have been granted permits in excess or State Undertaking are not impleaded.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge judgment restored.

Orders

  • Judgment of Division Bench is set aside.
  • Judgment of learned Single Judge is restored.