Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ABDUL REHMAN AND ORS. versus STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

Decided
8 March 1978
Judges listed
V.R. KRISHNA IYER (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 453 · 1978 INSC 59

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1852/75 :-

p. 458, margin E

JAsWANT SINGH, J.-This is a petition under Article 136 of .the Constitution seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated September 3, 1975 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 216 of 1973 upholding the jud!Jment and order d~ted August 28, 1973 of K. N. Singh, J. in writ petition No. 3310 of 1973 whereby while di~missing the writ petition in part, he maintained the order dated May 5, 1973 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in so far as it allowed the appeal No" 237 of 1969 preferred by Hari'sh Chandra Mishra against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut passed in its meeting held on August 28 and 29, 1964 and directed that a regular stage carriage permit for the amalgamated route known as Meerut-Mawana-Hastinapur-Bijnor and allied routes, be allowed to him.

p. 458, margin E

The facts giving rise to this petition are set out in onr judgn1ent of even dated in Civil Appeal No. 1276 of 1975 and need not be reiterated. In view of the settled position of law that this Court would be reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted au.thorities o.r tribunals under the :Mbtor Vehicles Act, 1939 especially when the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage

p. 458, margin G

605. [196415 869. carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are expectep .to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the reie:'ant matters which should engage their attention under the provi'sions o;ontained in the Act and nothing basically wrong with the order sought to be appealed against so far as Harish Chandra Mishra is concerned has been found by the High Court, as also the obse.rvations made by this Court in Mohd. Ibrahim etc. v. State Transport Appellaie Tribunal, Madras etc.(') we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs. S.R. Appeal allowed & Petition dismissed.

pp. 458–459, margin H

(I) I S.C.R. 481·484.

p. 459, margin B