2010_v 7_pii

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

1/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

2/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

3/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

4/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

5/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

6/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

7/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

8/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

9/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

10/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

11/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

12/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

13/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

14/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

15/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

16/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

17/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

18/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

19/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

20/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

21/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

22/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

23/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

24/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

25/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

26/148

341FULJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.[DR B S CHAUHAN J ]

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 342

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

27/148

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

20.05.2010, asked the respondents to explain this aspect andfile an affidavit of the Administrator of the Authority. In responsethereto, an Affidavit had been filed by the Chief Administrator,Greater Mohali Development Authority, explaining the entireposition in respect of the allotment and recovery of duesfurnishing all details and according to this Affidavit, the moneyis being recovered from all defaulters including Shri D.S.Laungia along with interest.

28. In view of the above, we find no force in the appeal, itlacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to

costs.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.v.

G.S. RANDHAWA(Civil Appeal No. 3392 of 2007)

JUNE 3, 2010

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:

Allotment of plot Liability of allottee to pay additional

price HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt.Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside Thedemand notice is upheld The appellants are entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.

*Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors. [2010] 7 SCR317, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

[2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3392 of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil WritPetition No. 2800 of 1992.

Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearingparties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. We have heard Ms. Rachna

Joshi Issar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spiteof notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested

342

343STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. G.S. RANDHAWA[DR B S CHAUHAN J ]

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 344

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

28/148

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent,to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of

2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decidedon this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Orderof the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and theDemand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.v.

COL. KULDEEP SINGH(Civil Appeal No. 3546 of 2007)

JUNE 3, 2010


Punjab Urban Estate (Sale of Sites) Rules, 1965:

Allotment of plot Liability of allottee to pay additional

price HELD: In view of the decision of the Court in Smt.Fuljit Kaur* the judgment of the High Court is set aside Thedemand notice is upheld The appellants are entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.

*Smt. Fuljit Kaur vs. state of Punjab & Ors.[2010] 7 SCR317, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

[2010] 7 SCR 317 relied on para 2


From the Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2006 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil WritPetition No. 18110 of 1991.

Vijay Hansaria, (A.C.) and Ashok Mathur for the appearingparties.


DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. We have heard Ms. Rachna

Joshi Issar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. In spiteof notice, respondent did not enter appearance. We requested

344

345STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. COL. KULDEEPSINGH [DR B S CHAUHAN J ]

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 346

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

29/148

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

SINGH [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

Sh. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel for the respondent,to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.

2. For the reasons recorded in Civil Appeal No. 5292 of

2004 (Smt. Fuljit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.) decidedon this date, the appeal stands allowed. Judgment and Orderof the High Court dated 06.12.2006 is set aside and theDemand Notice is upheld. The appellant is entitled to makerecovery in accordance with law.


MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS.v.

UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007)

JUNE 3, 2010


Urban Development:

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 s. 41

Control by State Government State Government-revisional Authority under the Statute, if could take upon itselfthe task of lower statutory authority Held: Higher authorityin hierarchy or appellate or revisional authority cannotexercise the power of statutory authority nor can directstatutory authority to act in a particular manner Such orderwould be unenforceable Aggrieved person can prefer

appeal before appellate authority and against the said orderhe may file revision application before State Government However, State Government cannot pass order without givingopportunity of hearing to the person adversely affected Onfacts, State Government directly entertained application forallotment of land without hearing the other party ChiefMinister directed allotment of land in favour of one of theapplicants Thus, order passed by State Government stood

vitiated since it took the task of the Development Authorityupon itself It was a case of colourable exercise of power Chief Minister had no competence to deal with the subject More so, land was allotted contrary to the Land Policy LandAcquisition Act, 1894.

Interim order Order passed or action taken by statutoryauthority in contravention of interim order Enforceability of Held: Is a nullity On facts, interim order passed by HighCourt was in force and it restrained the Authorities to make

346

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

30/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

31/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

32/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

33/148

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.355 356MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v.UGRASEN (D) BYLRS. & ORS.

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

34/148

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AIR 1997 SC 1236 Relied on. Para 48





(2004) 7 SCC 166 Relied on. Para 50

JT 2010 (3) SC 510 Relied on. Para 50

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 973of 2007.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2003 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in C.W.P. No. 6644 of 1989.

WITH

C.A. No. 974 of 2007.R.P. Bhatt, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Reena Singh, Dr. Vipin

Gupta, Arvind Kumar Gupta, Shailender Paul for the Appellants.

Debal Kumar Banerji, Pramod Swarup, Ruby Singh Ahuja,Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Kamlendra Mishra, Manoj Dwivedi,Vandana Mishra, Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Anuvrat Sharma

for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. Both these appeals have beenpreferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgmentand order of the Allahabad High Court dated 22nd July, 2003passed in C.M.W.P. No.6644 of 1989 by which the High Court

has allowed the Writ Petition filed by respondent No.1-Ugrasenquashing the allotment of land made in favour of appellant-Manohar Lal and further directed to make the allotment of landin favour of the said respondent-Ugrasen.








AIR 2006 SC 898 Relied on. Para 19AIR 1971 SC 97 Relied on. Para 20
















7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

35/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

36/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

37/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

38/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

39/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

40/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

41/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

42/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

43/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

44/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

45/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

46/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

47/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

48/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

49/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

50/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

51/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

52/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

53/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

54/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

55/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

56/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

57/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

58/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

59/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

60/148

AA

409BHANWARLAL DUGAR & ORS. v. BRIDHICHANDPANNALAL & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]

and remit the matter to the First Appellate Court (AppellateCourt of the Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati) for hearingthe appeal afresh for its disposal in accordance with law It is

CHUNNI LALv.

STATE OF U P

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 410

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

61/148

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

B

C

the appeal afresh for its disposal in accordance with law. It isneedless to observe that the Appellate Court shall re-hear the

matter and decide all the issues that arise for its considerationby properly re-appreciating the evidence available on record.The appeal shall be heard and disposed of within six monthsfrom today.

11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed without any orderas to costs.


STATE OF U.P.(Criminal Appeal No. 669 of 2006)

JULY 5, 2010

[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860:

s.302 Accused firing at his uncle causing his death Conviction by trial court Affirmed by High Court Pleas ofabsence of motive for the crime, evidence of interestedwitnesses only and delay in filing FIR and startinginvestigation HELD: Are not tenable Motive for the crimehas been established because of the development of theevents which entirely defeated the chances of the accused toinherit the property of his deceased uncle The eye-witnesses being the sons of the deceased, their presence at

the place of occurrence at the relevant time was usual andexpected They have given a vivid account of the incidentand the manner in which it occurred Their evidence couldnot be shaken by defence in cross-examination The ocularevidence fully corroborates the medical evidence The delaycaused due to reasonable factual situation cannot destroyprosecution case nor would it create any suspicion onprosecution case In the instant case, the entire area beingdacoits infested area, the police station being far away fromthe place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer having beenrequired to attend the court at the relevant time, the court beingat a distance from the police station, there is well reasonedand proper explanation for the delay both in lodging the FIRand starting the investigation Accused has been rightlyconvicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302

Criminal law Motive Evidence Testimony of relatedwitnesses Delay in lodging FIR and starting investigation.

410

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

62/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

63/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

64/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

65/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

66/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

67/148

AA

423CHUNNI LAL v.STATE OF U.P.[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

20. All the aforesaid discussions and facts, therefore, leadto one and the only conclusion that the appellant is guilty of theoffence alleged against him.

VINOD SETHv.

DEVINDER BAJAJ AND ANR.(Ci il A l N 4891 f 2010)

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 424

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

68/148

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

B

21. In our considered opinion, the accused has been rightlyconvicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC. This appeal,therefore, has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

(Civil Appeal No. 4891 of 2010)

JULY 05, 2010

[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882: s.52 Suit for specificperformance of oral collaboration agreement for developmentof residential suit premises No application by plaintiff for

interim relief High Court directing plaintiff to furnish anundertaking to pay Rs.25 lakhs to defendants in the event oflosing case observing that prima facie case not in favour ofplaintiff and due to heavy dockets in courts early disposal ofsuit was not possible Propriety of Held: There is noprovision in the Code or any substantive law which enable theCourt to issue a direction to a plaintiff in a suit to file anundertaking that in the event of not succeeding in the suit, he

would pay damages to the defendant Such power cannotbe traced even in s.151 It is an order in terrorem Orderpunishing a litigant on the ground that the court is not able todecide the case expeditiously is unwarranted, and beyond itspower In the facts and circumstances, suit propertyexempted from the operation of s.52 and defendants grantedliberty to deal with the property in any manner they may deem

fit, inspite of the pendency of the suit subject to their furnishingsecurity of Rs.3 lakhs Doctrine of lis pendens SpecificRelief Act, 1963 s.14(1)(b) and (d) Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 ss.35, 35A, 151, Order 25 r.1 Damages Undertaking Judgment/Order Order in terrorem.

Costs: Absence of effective provisions for costs Needfor reform The provision for costs as envisaged in ss.35,

35A, 35B have either become infructuous on account ofinflation or are seldom invoked Lack of appropriate

424

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

69/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

70/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

71/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

72/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

73/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

74/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

75/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

76/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

77/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

78/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

79/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

80/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

81/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

82/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

83/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

84/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

85/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

86/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

87/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

88/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

89/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

90/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

91/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

92/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

93/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

94/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

95/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

96/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

97/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

98/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

99/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

100/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

101/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

102/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

103/148

A

B

A

B

495INDU BHUSHAN DWIVEDI v.STATE OFJHARKHAND AND ANR. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of thisorder. If the High Court still feels that the adverse remarks inthe Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the year1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1996-1997 should beconsidered, then such report(s) shall be communicated to him

and he should be given an opportunity to make appropriaterepresentation. While making fresh recommendation for

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.v.

S.K. NURUL AMIN(Civil Appeal No. 1961 of 2006)

JULY 05, 2010[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

[2010] 7 S.C.R. 496

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

104/148

C

D

E

F

G

H

C

imposing the particular punishment, the High Court is expectedto take into consideration the good as well as adverse recordof the appellant. The State Government shall pass appropriateorder within three months from the date of receipt of freshrecommendation from the High Court. The parties are left to

bear their own cost.B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

[ ]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s.72(1) Interpretation of Grant of stage carriage permit Power of State TransportAuthority to grant stage carriage permits with modification bycurtailing a part of the routes applied for Held: The State

Transport Authority is not bound to grant a stage carriagepermit as sought It can refuse to grant such permit or grantpermit with such modifications as deemed fit by it Curtailment of a route would be a modification ascontemplated under s.72(1) State Transport Authority is notprohibited from curtailment in regard to portion of the routeapplied for, for any valid reason So long as the reason forthe modification is not found to be arbitrary or unreasonable,the order of the Authority cannot be interfered with The onlyrestriction on the power of the Authority is that it cannot granta permit for a route not specified in the application.

Respondent made two applications to the StateTransport Authority, West Bengal for grant of permanentstage carriage permit. The first application was for a

permit for the route Dhulian Bazar to Kolkata (viaRaghunathganj and Barasat) and the second applicationwas for a permit for the route Raghunathganj to Kolkata(via Barasat).

The State Transport Authority, West Bengal offeredpermits for the routes Dhulian Bazar to Barasat andRaghunathganj to Barasat respectively, by curtailing/

496

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

105/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

106/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

107/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

108/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

109/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

110/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

111/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

112/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

113/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

114/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

115/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

116/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

117/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

118/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

119/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

120/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

121/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

122/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

123/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

124/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

125/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

126/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

127/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

128/148

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A

B

A

B

545 546RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. &ANR. ETC.

same manner as the earlier Notification dated April 16,1999. [Para 43] [567-G-H; 568-A-B]

Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr. (1974) 2SCC 831; Capital Multi-purpose Co-operative Society Bhopaland Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1967) 3 SCR 329; A.

Sanjeevi Naidu, Etc. v. State of Madras and Anr. (1970) 1SCC 443; M/s. Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative SocietyLtd. and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.AIR 1963 SC1098; Afsar Jahan Begum (Smt) and Ors. v. State Of M.P.

d O (1996) 8 SCC 38 C P C M S i M

1994 Suppl.(3)

SCC 460 Referred to. Para 33

(2001) 5 SCC 762 Referred to. Para 33

AIR 1957 SC 676 Referred to. Para 39

(1952) 1 SCR 612 Relied on. Para 41


7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

129/148

C

D

E

F

G

H

C

D

E

F

G

H

and Ors.(1996) 8 SCC 38; C.P.C. Motor Service, Mysore v.State of Mysore and Anr.AIR 1966 SC 1661; Karnataka StateRoad Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan and Ors.

(2002) 2 SCC 560, referred to.Case Law Reference:

(1985) 4 SCC169 Referred to.Para 11,12, 33,

(1992) 2 SCC 620 Referred to. Para 14, 15, 16,23, 32, 33


(1967) 3 SCR 329 Referred to. Para 21


AIR 1959 SC 308 Referred to. Para 21, 35







(1960) 3 SCR 742 Relied on. Para 32

From the Judgment & Order dated 23.4.2002 of the HighCourt of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24070 of 2000.

WITH

C.A. Nos. 4894, 4895 of 2010.

Dinesh Dwivedi, Nagendra Rai, P.N. Gupta for theAppellants.

Ratnakar Dash, Shail Kr. Dwivedi, Addl. A.G., Raj Kumar

Gupta, Rajeev Kr. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Vandana Mishra,Pramod Swarup, Rani Chhabra, Garima Prashad, Neha Goyalfor the Respondents.


R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Delay condoned and leave granted inSLP(C) No.820 of 2003. Leave also granted in SLP (C) No.21707 of 2002. The applicants in the I.As. for impleadment areallowed to intervene.

Introduction

2. Five writ petitions by various operators came to be filedbefore High Court of Judicature at Allahabad questioning theNotification dated April 15, 2000 issued by the State of U.P.rescinding the earlier Notification dated April 16, 1999 and for

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

130/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

131/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

132/148

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R.

A

B

A

B

RASID JAVED & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. &ANR. ETC. [R.M. LODHA, J.]

553 554

11/89, 12/89, 13/89,14/89, 16/89, 17/89,18/89, 19/89, Shall beallowed to operatetheir buses alongwithU.P.S.R.T.C. on theroute namely,Saharanpur-Loni Via-S h a m a l i - B a r a u t -Baghpat -Marg ina lBandh Road-ISBTDelhi.

Provided that thepermit Holders sub-clauses (ii) and (iii)above shall get theirpermits counter-signed by the StateGovernment ofHaryana for plyingtheir buses in the

State of Haryana.

18 The Notification provided that the UPSRTC and any

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

133/148

C

D

E

F

G

H

C

D

E

F

G

H

(ii) holding permitnumbers P.S.R.T.P.

303/89, P.S.T.P. 304/89 and, P.S.T.P. 305/89, shall be allowed tooperate their busesalongwith U.P.S.R.T.C. on the Routenamely Meerut-Chandigarh via Baraut-S h a m l i - G a n g o h -

SaharanpurSarsawa-YamunaAmbala; and

(iii) holding permitnumbers 168/94, 169/94, 170/94, 171/94,172/94, 173/94, 222/94, 233/94, 23/95, 24/95, 25/95, 739/89, 242/94, 764/90, 787/90,772/90, 800/90, 784/90, shall be allowed tooperate their busesalongwith U.P.S.R.T.C. on the routenamely :- Saharanpur-Karnal via Jandhera-

Rampur-Gangoh Nea Yamuna Bridge :

18. The Notification provided that the UPSRTC and anyother person likely to be affected by the proposed modificationmay make representations within 30 days from the date of

publication of the Notification in the Gazette and that therepresentations so received will be heard by the HearingAuthority Shri Zamiruddin, Special Secretary and AdditionalLegal Rememberancer, Uttar Pradesh.

19. In pursuance thereof various representations werereceived. The Hearing Authority after hearing the concernedparties who made the representations passed an order on

October 11, 1999 approving the notified proposed modificationand the objections presented by the UPSRTC and otherobjectors were dismissed.

20. The State Government, however, by a Notificationdated April 15, 2000 in exercise of the powers under Section102 of 1988 Act read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act,1897 rescinded the Notification dated April 16, 1999.

Main submissions of the parties

21. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel led thearguments on behalf of the appellants. He argued that it wasnot open to the State Government to withdraw the Notificationdated April 16, 1999 after it had been approved by the HearingAuthority by his order dated October 11, 1999. According to

him, the order passed by the Hearing Authority on October 11,

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

134/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

135/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

136/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

137/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

138/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

139/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

140/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

141/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

142/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

143/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

144/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

145/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

146/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

147/148

7/24/2019 2010_v 7_pii

148/148

2010_v 7_pii

Documents