Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"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