Ranbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4351 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4351 of 1999)
Petitioner: Ranbir Singh
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4523 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4351 of 1999)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4351 of 1999)
Judges: A.P. MISRA & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 08, 2000
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
Section 63(a), (b) – Inter-state route – Reciprocal agreement arrived at – Permit granted by both states – Agreement however, not published in official gazette – One State (Haryana) also not countersigning – Meanwhile strength of route increased. Held that in the circumstances, appellant may apply afresh for said route, which shall be considered by State in accordance with law. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The initial grievance of the appellant was that the appellant is an operator in the inter-State route between Bhadra-Hisar via Adampur falling in two States, State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana. A reciprocal agreement was entered into between the two States and both the States, in pursuance to the same, granted permits. Under the said agreement, a number of services were increased in order to provide better facilities. The permits were granted under the same but the said reciprocal agreement was not published in the official gazette under Sections 63(a) and 63(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. And also the State of Haryana had not countersigned the permits. During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the strength of the aforesaid routes were increased. Looking into this fact with the passage of time, we feel it is proper for the appellant to apply afresh, if so advised, for the said route. We have no hesitation in case the appellant applies for the said route, the respondent will consider the same in accordance with law and dispose it of preferably within the period of three months from the date this order is communicated to the authority concerned.
4. With the said observations, the appeals are disposed of. Costs on the parties.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The initial grievance of the appellant was that the appellant is an operator in the inter-State route between Bhadra-Hisar via Adampur falling in two States, State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana. A reciprocal agreement was entered into between the two States and both the States, in pursuance to the same, granted permits. Under the said agreement, a number of services were increased in order to provide better facilities. The permits were granted under the same but the said reciprocal agreement was not published in the official gazette under Sections 63(a) and 63(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. And also the State of Haryana had not countersigned the permits. During the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, the strength of the aforesaid routes were increased. Looking into this fact with the passage of time, we feel it is proper for the appellant to apply afresh, if so advised, for the said route. We have no hesitation in case the appellant applies for the said route, the respondent will consider the same in accordance with law and dispose it of preferably within the period of three months from the date this order is communicated to the authority concerned.
4. With the said observations, the appeals are disposed of. Costs on the parties.
