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

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more