LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback

Law
Cite


Cases Referring to this Case | Law Reform Reports Referring to this Case | Law Journal Articles Referring to this Case | Legislation Cited | Cases and Articles Cited

Help

Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989 could not be amended independently for imposing the fees under reference It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that imposition of application fee was non-est in the eye of law Therefore, no one was under obligation to pay fees to submit application for extension of validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage Permit Relying upon the aforesaid facts, it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of promise/assurance held by the respondent authorities in the matter, the writ petitioners altered their positions to their prejudice, i e by investing a sizeable amount of money in purchasing vehicles under reference, getting those vehicles registered with the respondent no 2 on payment of registration fees and insurance fees as also other investments According to the petitioners the doctrine of promissory estoppel stands in the way of refusal to issue Stage Carriage Permits under reference to the writ petitioners The other limb of submission on behalf of the petitioners is this assuming that the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989 empowers West Bengal to impose fees for making an application for extension validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage Permit Neither the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rule, 1989 nor the new entry (application) prescribed that such application should be accompanied by the prescribed fees of Rs 500/- In other wards the above provisions did not stand in any way in making payment of fees for extension of validity of such an offer letter subsequent to filing application for extension of the validity of such an offer letter It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the fees for extension of the validity of offer letters under reference were paid subsequent to the filing of applications on the basis of the orders dated August 2, 2007 from Regional Transport Authority being the competent officer in accordance w   flag  5

AIR 1979 SC 1144
All India Reporter, Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India
India

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name Citation(s) Court Jurisdiction Date †  Full Text Citation Index
Subir Goel v Union of India - WP [2014] INWBKOHC 8100 High Court of Calcutta India 29 Apr 2014 LIIofIndia flag
Krishna Gopal Kakani v Bank of Baroda [2008] INSC 1667 Supreme Court of India India 30 Sep 2008 LIIofIndia flag
Shiv Shramik Taka SSLTD v Raj - Cfa Case [2007] INRJHC 3612 High Court of Rajasthan India - Rajasthan 26 Jul 2007 LIIofIndia flag
Shrimanohar vbarad v Union of India - WP / 137 / 2001 [2004] INGAHC 80 High Court of Bombay at Goa India 13 Feb 2004 LIIofIndia flag
MR Agostinho Menezes,margao-Goa v the Regional Director and 2 Anr - Aue / 7 / 2003 [2003] INGAHC 541 High Court of Bombay at Goa India 19 Sep 2003 LIIofIndia flag

LawCite: Privacy | Disclaimers | Conditions of Use | Acknowledgements | Feedback