D. M. THIPPESWAMY versus THE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

D. M. THIPPESWAMY versus THE MYSORE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

The appellant was not an 'existing permit holder' on the relevant date, as he had not obtained the necessary counter-signature from the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh by July 28, 1964, and thus was not entitled to operate on the route under the scheme. The functions under section 68F(2) are ministerial, and only the R.T.A. could cancel permits, but this technicality cannot alter the outcome since the permit was bound to be cancelled in pursuance of the scheme.

Parties
Appellant: D. M. Thippeswamy; Respondents: The Mysore Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 May 1972
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated August 10, 1971 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 3244 of 1970
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Permits on Nationalised Routes, Interpretation of 'existing Permit Holder', Ministerial Powers of R.t.a.
Administrative Law Transport Law Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Permits on Nationalised Routes Interpretation of 'existing Permit Holder' Ministerial Powers of R.t.a.

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. M. Thippeswamy

Appellant

The Mysore Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated August 10, 1971 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 3244 of 1970

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who qualifies as an 'existing permit holder' under section 68F(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the context of an approved scheme?
  2. 2 Who is competent to cancel or modify existing permits under the approved scheme?
  3. 3 Does partial or total exclusion under a scheme affect permit cancellation?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not an 'existing permit holder' on the relevant date, as he had not obtained the necessary counter-signature from the concerned R.T.A. in Andhra Pradesh by July 28, 1964, and thus was not entitled to operate on the route under the scheme. The functions under section 68F(2) are ministerial, and only the R.T.A. could cancel permits, but this technicality cannot alter the outcome since the permit was bound to be cancelled in pursuance of the scheme.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • R.T.A. is bound to cancel the permit in pursuance of the scheme