SHIV CHAND AMOLAK CHAND versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR.

SHIV CHAND AMOLAK CHAND versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY & ANR.

A permit holder's application for extension of the route specified in the permit may be considered by the Regional Transport Authority without following the procedure under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, unless the extension sought is effectively a new route. Section 57(8) incorporates only the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Shiv Chand Amolak Chand; Respondent: Regional Transport Authority; Respondent: M.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 October 1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 19th March, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 565 of 1980
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicles Act – Permits, Route Extension Procedure, Statutory Interpretation
Transport Law Motor Vehicles Act – Permits Route Extension Procedure Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiv Chand Amolak Chand

Appellant

Regional Transport Authority

Respondent

M.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated 19th March, 1971 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 565 of 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is attracted when a permit holder seeks extension of the route specified in the permit

Ratio Decidendi

A permit holder's application for extension of the route specified in the permit may be considered by the Regional Transport Authority without following the procedure under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, unless the extension sought is effectively a new route. Section 57(8) incorporates only the procedure set out in Section 57(3)-(7) and does not create a requirement to determine the number of stage carriages for the extended route under Section 47(3) unless the extension amounts to a substantive new route.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court and order of Regional Transport Authority set aside
  • Case remitted to Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration of the appellants' application according to law and observations in this judgment