Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

"Delhi High Court Upholds Regulation of Rural Transport Vehicles: 'No Further Orders Required,' Says Justice Prateek Jalan"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court, led by HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN, has upheld the regulation of rural transport vehicles, particularly addressing the issue of illegal plying of stage carriages on specified routes. The court's decision comes in response to two writ petitions filed by drivers/operators of Rural Transport Vehicles operating under the Gramin Sewa scheme.

The petitioners, represented by Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ms. Surabhi Mishra, and Mr. Akash Sahay, Advocates, sought a direction from the court to remove illegal vehicles operating as stage carriages on specific routes. These routes, covered under the Gramin Sewa scheme, include Route No. 60 (Mukandpur to Azadpur Delhi), GS-9 (Shastri Park Metro Station to Mandawli), and GS-147 (Jheel to Kalyanpuri).

The petitioners' arguments were based on a notification dated 11.12.2014, issued by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), which prohibited the plying of e-rickshaws on 236 roads listed in the notification.

The court carefully examined the facts of the case, including status reports submitted by GNCTD, which acknowledged the presence of unauthorized vehicles on Gramin Sewa routes. GNCTD also detailed actions taken against these illegal vehicles, including challans, impoundment, and prosecutions for various violations.

Justice Prateek Jalan observed, "In view of the action taken thus far, and the assurance of GNCTD that regular action will be taken in respect of the grievances of the petitioner, I am of the view that no further orders are required in this writ petition."

The court further encouraged the petitioners to submit specific suggestions to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Police (Traffic) for consideration and appropriate action.

With these observations, the Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions, indicating its confidence in GNCTD's commitment to addressing the petitioners' concerns.

This judgment reinforces the importance of regulatory measures in the transportation sector and highlights the court's role in ensuring compliance with the law.

Date of Decision: September 13, 2023

FAROOQ vs COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Arvind_Kumar_Vs_COMMISSIONER_OF_TRANSPORT_GNCT_Of_Delhi_And_ANR_HC_DLH.pdf"]

Latest Legal News