Allahabad Court February 1992 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Surendra Rao Vs. Regional Trasport Authority, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakh ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1992All211
ORDERR.A. Sharma, J.1. Petitioners who are the existing operators holding stage carriage permits, have by means of these writ petitions challenged the orders, passed by the Regional Transport Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) granting stage carriage permits for their routes.2. In our opinion the petitioners have an alternative remedy of revision under S. 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned orders. These writ petitions as such are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioners have however, in this connection, invited our attention to the order dt. 21-3-1991, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal). Whereby a revision against the order of the R.T.A. granting permit was dismissed on the ground that an existing operator has no locus standi in the matter of grant of permits inasmuch as he has no right to be heard at the stage...
Kailash Nath Singh Yadav Vs. Speaker, Vidhan Sabha, Lucknow and Anothe ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: AIR1993All334
ORDERS.N. Sahay, J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6th December, 1991 passed by respondent No. 1 as contained in Annexure-14.2. The facts of the case, which have been set out in the writ petition, may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioner was elected to the U.P. Legislative Assembly in the elections held in May/June, 1991. The petitioner had contested on the Janta Dal ticket The Janta Dal is a National Party, recognized by the Chief Election Commissioner. In the Legislative Assembly the Janta Dal having 92 members emerged as the largest oppositionparty. The petitioner was elected as the Leader of Janta Dal Legislative Party in the Legislative Assembly on 25th June, 1991. He was recognised as Leader of opposition by respondent No. 1, who is Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. On 25th November, 1991 a letter was sent by 51 members of the Janta Dal Legislature Party in the Legislative Assembly to respondent...
Sah Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: 1993(46)LC490(Allahabad)
ORDER1. We have heard Shri A.P. Mathur learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sushil Hartauli learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 17.1.1992 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise Allahabad. The petitioner has statutory right of filing an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly rejected. In case the petitioner files an application for stay along with the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of the stay application within a period of 15 days from the date of presentation of the same....
Sudershan Doors Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-10-1992
Reported in: 1992(43)LC112(Allahabad)
Anshuman Singh, J.1. We have heared learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though he has filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector Central Excise along with an slay application on 29.1.1992 but the said application has not been disposed of and in the meantime, the authorities are insisting that the petitioner should implement the order passed by the Assistant Collector. Since the petitioner has already filed an statutory appeal, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly rejected. However the Collector (Appeals) Allahabad is directed to dispose of the stay application of the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order of this Court, in the meantime the operation of the order dated 17.1.1992 shall remain stayed till 2...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›