# Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur Education Society & another v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 391
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-01-09
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/catholic-diocese-of-gorakhpur-education-society-another-v-state-of-u-p-another-39752
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
391
6. In paragraph 7 she asserts that
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 often come to her
residence. No specific date has been
mentioned by the petitioner of their visit
besides they have also not been impleaded
in their personal capacity.

7. For the aforementioned reasons
the petitioner is not entitled to any relief
whatsoever.

8. This writ petition is consequently
dismissed summarily.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -

&LYLO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

&DWKROLF 'LRFHVH RI *RUDNKSXU (GXFDWLRQ
6RFLHW\
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $URRS %DQHUMHH
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL &KDQGUD 6KHNDU 6LQJK

0RWRU 9HKLFOHV $FW 6HFWLRQ
WKH SURYLVLRQ IRU SHUPLW XQGHU VHFWLRQ
 RI WKH 0RWRU 9HKLFOHV $FW LV
QRW DSSOLFDEOH LQ WKH FDVH RI UHFRJQLVHG
HGXFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ +HOG LQ SDUD
7KH SHWLWLRQHU LV WKH RZQHU RI WKH YHKLFOH
DQG
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
LV
D
UHFRJQLVHG
HGXFDWLRQDO
LQVWLWXWLRQ
DQG
LW
KDV
SURGXFHG
WKH
UHOHYDQW
GRFXPHQWV
VKRZLQJ WKH DIILOLDWLRQ XQGHU WKH ,&6(
%RDUG 8QGHU VXFK FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZH DUH
RI WKH YLHZ WKDW WKH UHVSRQGHQW QR
ZDV QRW MXVWLILHG LQ LQVLVWLQJ RQ SHUPLW
XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI WKH DFW IURP WKH
ZULW SHWLWLRQHUV

By the Court

1. We have heard Sri Aroop
Banerjee,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners and Sri Chandra Shekhar
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the respondents.

2. In the instant writ petition the
petitioners claim that it is a recognised
educational institution and as such the
provision for permit under Section 66(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short
the 'Act') is not applicable in the case of
the petitioners. Section 66(3)(h) of the
Act specifically mentions the category of
the transport vehicle for which permit
shall not be required. Section 66(1) and
66(3)(h) of the Act provides as under:

66. Necessity for permit (1) No
owner of a motor vehicle shall use or
permit the use of the vehicle as a transport
vehicle in any public place whether or not
such vehicle is actually carrying any
passengers or goods save in accordance
with the conditions of a permit granted or
countersigned by a Regional or State
Transport Authority or any prescribed
authority authorising him the use of the
vehicle in that place in the manner in
which the vehicle is being used.

Provided that a stage carriage permit
shall, subject to any conditions that may
be specified in the permit authorise the
use of the vehicle as a contract carriage.

Provided further that a stage carriage
permit may, subject to any conditions that
may be specified in the permit, authorise
1All] Catholic Diocese of Gorakhpur Education Society & another V. State of U.P. & another 392
the use of the vehicle as a goods
carriage either when carrying passengers
or not :

Provided also that a goods carriage
permit shall, subject to any conditions that
may be specified in the permit, authorise
the holder of use of vehicle for the
carriage of goods for or in connection
with a trade or business carried on by
him.

(3) The provisions of sub section (1)
shall not apply -

(h) to any transport vehicle owned by
and used solely for the purpose of any
educational
institution
which
is
recognised by the Central or State
government
or
whose
managing
committee is a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21
of 1860) or under any law corresponding
to that Act in force in any part of India."

3. Admittedly, the petitioner is the
owner of the vehicle and the petitioner is
a recognised educational institution and it
has produced the relevant documents
showing under the I.C.S.E. Board. Under
such circumstances, we are of the view
that the respondent no. 2 was not justified
in insisting on permit under section 66(1)
of the Act from the writ petitioners.

4. The writ petition succeeds and is,
accordingly,
allowed.
The
impugned
order
dated
09.01.2001
passed
by
respondent no. 2 accordingly stands
quashed.