Skip to main content

HC prohibits transport authorities from seizing private vehicle midway - Gujarat HC

Gujarat high court has ruled that the authorities cannot seize vehicles of private travel operators midway by making passengers alight the vehicles.
The high court has said that in case of violation of the Motor Vehicle Act or other laws, the authorities have to first ensure that the passengers do not suffer. They can seize vehicles only after they reach final destination and all passengers get down.

The HC ruling has come in response to a petition filed by the Akhil Gujarat Pravasi Vahan Chalak Mahamandal, which has approached the court after the show-cause notices issued to various travel operators by Ahmedabad RTO.

The authority has asked private operators to close their function in case they do not have requisite permission. It has also warned those who have allegedly violated norms of their permits.

The RTO has maintained that private travel operators do not have permission to issue ticket to passengers, but they get permit to transport a group of people to certain destination and not in an individual's case. Against this, they moved the HC expressing apprehension that their vehicles would be intercepted midway and passengers will have to suffer.

The rules say that private travel operators can provide transportation to people from a spot to pre-decided destinations. But they do not have permission to issue tickets to passengers. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has got monopoly in this field.99

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/HC-prohibits-transport-authorities-from-seizing-private-vehicle-midway/articleshow/36310404.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more