Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 126 (PAT)

Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate v. Union Of India

1995-02-24

K.VENKATASWAMI, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body1995
Judgment 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to delete the names of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 7. 2. The Amendment petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and he is directed to implead State Transport Commissioner- cum-Additional Secretary, Government of Bihar as party Respondent No. 7. 3. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Respondents. 4. Presently the learned Advocate General is not in a position to satisfy us that the Transport Commissioner has any authority to issue the impugned Annexure-1. In other words, he is not in a position to state whether as per Section 160 read with Section 166 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the State Government has delegated the power to the Transport Commissioner in accordance with that section. 5. In view of that, we are staying the operation of the order, as contained in Annexure-1, so far as private light vehicles of individual owners are concerned. 6. Call on 1st March, 1995, by which date the learned Advocate General must file counter affidavit stating all those facts. 7. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Advocate General.