{"id":86829,"date":"1968-08-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-08-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2"},"modified":"2019-04-04T05:15:44","modified_gmt":"2019-04-03T23:45:44","slug":"maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2","title":{"rendered":"Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR  329, \t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 808<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Ramaswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE.AMRAVATI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/08\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nSHAH, J.C.\nGROVER, A.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR  329\t\t  1969 SCR  (1) 808\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1970 SC 769\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\nMotor  Vehicles\t Act  (4 of 1939),  ss.\t 48(1),\t 57(7)\t and\n58(1)-Order   granting\t permit-Period\t of   validity\t not\nmentioned--Effect  of.-Date of commencement  not  mentioned-\nEffect of.\nPractice-Filling up date in earlier order-If review.\nIf order granting  permit can be  oral-Obligation  to\tgive\nreasons immediately.\nWrit  under Art. 226-Conduct of party when  precludes  issue\nof.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOn   May  10,  1965,  the  R.T.A.,  after  considering\t the\napplications  by  the respondents  (private  operators)\t for\nrenewal\t of  their  permits  and  the  application  by\t the\nappellant for a fresh grant of permits, for the same routes,\npassed\torders dismissing the. applications for renewal\t and\ngranting  substantive permits to the appellant.\t  The  order\nwas  challenged by the private operators in  writ  petitions\nand  the High Court directed that, pending the\tdisposal  of\nthe  writ  petitions,  status quo should  be  maintained  by\n:granting  temporary  permits  to  the\tprivate\t  operators.\nThereafter,  while  'the writ petitions\t were  pending,\t the\nappellant   and\t  the  private\toperators  filed   a   joint\napplication  of\t compromise before the R.T.A. by  which\t the\nprivate\t operators  agreed to withdraw the  writ  petitions.\nThe R.T.A.., on September 11, 19'65, upon such assurance and\nafter  hearing\tthe parties, directed  that  the  appellant,\nwhich was granted substantive permits by order dated May 10,\n1965,  would commence operation on the routes  described  in\nSchedule  A  to the order from November 1,  1965,  that\t the\nprivate\t operators  would operate on  temporary\t permits  on\nroutes\tmentioned in Schedule B till June 30. 1967 and\tthat\nthe appellant would commence operation on those routes\tfrom\nJuly  1,  1967.\t  With regard to  the  routes  mentioned  in\nSchedule C, the private operators agreed to surrender  their\npermits in favour of the appellant but, as the appellant had\nnot  made  any\tapplication for\t those\troutes,\t the  R.T.A.\ndecided\t to  call for applications as provided\tfor  in\t the\nMotor  Vehicles Act, 1939.  On October 8, 1965\tthe  private\noperators  withdrew  the writ petitions, and  thereupon\t the\nR.T.A., on October 15, 1965, announced The decision taken on\nSeptember 11, 1965, and thereafter, invited applications for\nthe routes mentioned in Schedule C   The appellant made\t its\napplication.   The private operators also applied, but\tthey\napplied not only for permits for C Schedule routes, but also\nin  respect  of the B Schedule routes.\tOn  April  5,  1967,\npermits\t were  issued to the appellant in respect of  the  B\nSchedule  routes  as per the-orders dated May 10,  1965\t and\nSeptember 11, 1965, for a period of 5 years commencing\tfrom\nJuly  1, 1967;\tAt its meeting on June 29, 1967, the  R.T.A.\npassed\tresolutions in the presence of the parties  granting\nsubstantive  permits in respect of Schedule C routes to\t the\nappellant,   and  rejecting  the  applications\tof   private\noperators.   The  minutes  of  the  meeting  were   formally\nrecorded  in a letter of July 20, 1967, detailed reasons  in\nsupport\t of  the  order\t were  given,  and  the\t letter\t was\ncommunicated to the private operators.\tThe order dated June\n29,\n809\n1967  was  challenged  by the  private\toperators  in  write\npetitions and the High Court allowed the petitions  quashing\nthe  grant  of\tpermits\t to  the  appellant  on\t the  routes\ndescribed in Schedules B and C.\nIn  appeal to this Court, on the questions: (1) whether\t the\norder of the R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, was invalid because,\n(a)  the period of validity of the permit was not  expressly\nmentioned,  and\t (b) the order did not mention the  date  of\ncommencement  of the period of the permit; (2)\twhether\t the\norder  of  the R.T.A. dated September 11, 1965,\t fixing\t the\ndate  of commencement of the service was  invalid,  because,\nthe  order was a review of the order dated May 10, 1965\t and\nthe  R.T.A.  had no power of review; (3) whether  the  order\ndated September 11, 1965, was invalid because it was  passed\nduring\tthe  subsistence of the interim order  of  the\tHigh\nCourt maintaining status quo; (4) whether in  view of  their\nconduct,  it was not open to the private operators to  apply\nfor  a\twrit  for quashing the order  of  the  R.T.A.  dated\nSeptember 11. 1965; and (5) whether the order of the  R.T.A.\ndated  June  29, 1967, was invalid, because, the  order\t was\noral  and no reasons were given by the\tR.T.,A.\t immediately\nfor the order.\nHELD:  (1)  (a) There is no statutory requirement  that\t the\nR.T.A. should expressly mention in its order granting permit\nunder  s.  48(1) the period for which the permit was  to  be\ngranted.   The order of\t the R.T.A. should be  construed  in\nthe language of s. 48(1 ) which empowers the R.T.A. to grant\na stage carriage permit 'in accordance with the application'\nor  'with such modifications as it deems fit'.\tAs  required\nby  r. 80 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, the  appellant\nmentioned 5 years as the period for which the permit was  to\nbe granted.  Since the R.T.A. did not make any\tmodification\nit  must be deemed that the grant was made for 5  years,  in\naccordance with the application.  Therefore, the order dated\nMay  10, 1965 could not be held illegal on the\tground\tthat\nthe period was not expressly mentioned. [815 H; 816 B-E]\n(b)  There is nothing in the Act or in the Rules to  suggest\nthat  the  R.T.A. is under an obligation to mention  in\t the\norder  of  grant of permit the actual date  from  which\t the\npermit was  to be  effective.  Under s. 48(3)(i) of the Act,\nthe  R.T.A.  may specify as a condition that  service  shall\ncommence   from\t a  specified  date.   But  it\t is   merely\npermissible  and does nor apply to the order of grant  of  a\npermit\twhich is dealt with in s. 48(1).  In the absence  of\nany  express statutory provision it. must be taken that\t the\ndate  of the commencement of the period of the permit  would\nbe  the date from which it was actually issued.\t  Therefore,\nthe  order of the R.T.A. was not invalid, because, the\tdate\nof commencement was not mentioned. [816 F-H]\nShree Laxmi Bus Transport Co. v. The R.T.A. Rajkot, 62\tBom.\nL.R. 958, referred to.\n(2)  It is not correct to say that the order of\t the  R.T.A.\ndated\tSeptember  11. 1965, was an order of review  of\t the\nprevious  order dated May 10, 1965.  The later order of\t the\nR.T.A.,\t fixing the date of commencement of the service\t was\nonly supplemental and filled up an omission in the  previous\norder which was left intact. [817 E-F]\n(3)  The order of the R.T.A. dated September 11, 1965 was  a\nconditional one which was intended to come into effect\tonly\nafter the writ petitions in the High Court were withdrawn by\nthe  private operators, and it was in fact  announced  after\nthe  petitions\twere  withdrawn.   Therefore,  there  is  no\nviolation of the interim  order\t of the High Court. [818  B-\nC]\n810\n(4)  The private operators were parties to the\torder  dated\nSeptember 11, 1965, had accepted that order, acted upon\t it,\nand  derived benefits and advantages from it for nearly\t one\nyear and nine months.  In those circumstances there was such\nacquiescence  in  the  order on the  part  off\tthe  private\noperators  as to disentitle them to a grant of a writ  under\nArt. 226 of the Constitution. [818 D-E, G-H]\nMoon  Mills  Ltd. v.M.R. Meher,\t A.I.R.\t 1967\tS.C.   1450,\n1454, followed.\n(5)  There  is no provision either in the Act or  the  Rules\nwhich requires either expressly or by necessary implication,\nthat the. R.T.A. should give a written decision with  regard\nto  the grant of a stage carriage permit or to give  reasons\ntherefor along with the written decision.  Therefore, in the\nabsence\t of any statutory provision, there is nothing  wrong\nin principle if an administrative tribunal gives a  decision\norally\t and  subsequently reduces to  writing\tthe  reasons\ntherefor and communicates it to the parties. [823 G; 827  D-\nE]\nProcedure in English law referred to.\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1934515\/\">Bhagat\tRaja  v. Union of India,<\/a> [1967] 3  S.C.R.  302\t and\nPrag   Das Umar Vaishya v. Union of India, C.A. No.  657  of\n1967, dated August 17, 2967, held inapplicable.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 825 851  of<br \/>\n1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals from the&#8217; judgment and order dated  October  19, 20,<br \/>\n1967 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur bench in Special Civil<br \/>\nApplications  Nos.  575 to 596, 634, 540 and 570 to  572  of<br \/>\n1967 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>C.K.  Daphtary,\t Attorney-General, Santosh  Chatterjee\t and<br \/>\nD.P. Singh, for the appellant (in all the appeals).<br \/>\nM.N.  Phadke,  C.G.  Madholkar and A.  G.  Ratnaparkhi,\t for<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 832, 840, 842, 844 and 847&#8242;<br \/>\nto 851 of 1968).\n<\/p>\n<p>M.N.  Phadke, M.W. Puranik and Naunit Lal,  for\t  respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1 (in C. As. Nos. 825 to 831 and 833 to 838 of 1968).<br \/>\nR.V.S. Mani, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 845 of 1968).<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nRamaswami, J. These appeals are brought by certificate\tfrom<br \/>\nthe judgment of the Bombay High Court dated October 20, 1967<br \/>\nin  Special Civil Applications Nos. 540, 570 to 572, 575  to<br \/>\n596  and  634 of 1967 filed under Arts. 226 and 227  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant is the State Road Transport Corporation of the<br \/>\nState  of Maharashtra constituted under the  Road  Transport<br \/>\nCorporation  Act  (64 of 1950).\t Respondent No. 1 who  is  a<br \/>\nprivate<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">811<\/span><br \/>\nstage\tcarriage  operator  alongwith  other  such   private<br \/>\noperators, had applied for renewal of stage carriage permits<br \/>\nwhich they were holding and which permits were to expire  on<br \/>\nMarch  31,   1961. The Provincial  Transport  Services\t(the<br \/>\npredecessor  of the appellant) had been also  operating\t the<br \/>\nstage  carriage service in  the adjoining and  nearby  areas<br \/>\nand  had  made applications sometime in\t January,  1961\t for<br \/>\ngrant  of  substantive\tpermits for the\t same  routes.\t The<br \/>\nProvincial  Transport  Services\t had   published   a  scheme<br \/>\nunder  s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act,  1939\t(hereinafter<br \/>\ncalled\tthe  &#8216;Act&#8217;)  under which it proposed  to  take\tover<br \/>\nseveral routes in the region including the routes in respect<br \/>\nof which renewal applications were made by the appellant and<br \/>\nthe private operators.\tThe scheme was approved by the Chief<br \/>\nMinister  of  the  then Bombay\tState.\t The  approval\twas,<br \/>\nhowever,  challenged by private operators in  Special  Civil<br \/>\nApplication No. 86 of 1962 in the High Court.  By its  order<br \/>\ndated  29\/30th\tAugust, 1963 passed in that case,  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt quashed the scheme with the direction that the  matter<br \/>\nshould\tbe  reconsidered by the\t approving  authority.\t The<br \/>\nscheme was thereafter not pursued.\n<\/p>\n<p>By  a notification dated June 10, 1961 under s. 47A  of\t the<br \/>\nRoad   Transport  Corporation  Act  of\t1950   the   Central<br \/>\nGovernment provided for the amalgamation of the Bombay\tRoad<br \/>\nTransport Corporation with the Commercial Undertaking of the<br \/>\nState  Government namely the Provincial Transport  Services.<br \/>\nIt   was  also\tprovided  in  the  notification\t  that\t any<br \/>\napplication  for  permit made by  the  Provincial  Transport<br \/>\nServices  would be deemed to. be an application made by\t the<br \/>\nBombay\tRoad  Transport Corporation.  In  other\t words,\t the<br \/>\nProvincial   Transport\t Services  was\tsubstituted  by\t the<br \/>\nState  Road  Transport\tCorporation which is  now  known  as<br \/>\nMaharashtra  State Road Transport  Corporation\t(hereinafter<br \/>\nreferred to as the &#8216;appellant&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>The applications for renewal of permits and applications for<br \/>\nsubstantive   permits  were  considered\t by   the   Regional<br \/>\nTransport   Authority,\t Nagpur\t (hereinafter\tcalled\t the<br \/>\n&#8216;R.T.A.&#8217;) on October 9 and 10, 1964 and the R.T.A. passed  a<br \/>\ncommon order by which all the applications for renewal\tmade<br \/>\nby  private  operators were rejected and  the  permits\twere<br \/>\ngranted\t to  the  appellant.  This order of the\t R.T.A.\t was<br \/>\nchallenged  by\tthe  private  operators\t in  Special   Civil<br \/>\nApplication  No. 603 of 1964.  One of the grounds  on  which<br \/>\nthe order was challenged was that the R.T.A. was not validly<br \/>\nconstituted.  By its order dated January 14, 1965,  the High<br \/>\nCourt  quashed the order passed by the R.T.A., holding\tthat<br \/>\nit  was not properly constituted on October 13,\t 1964\twhen<br \/>\nit passed the common order.  Thereafter the applications for<br \/>\nrenewal of permits and for fresh grant of permits were again<br \/>\nconsidered  by\tthe R.T.A. at its meeting held\ton  May\t 10,<br \/>\n1965.\tBy its order on the same date, the R.T.A.  dismissed<br \/>\nall the applications<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">812<\/span><br \/>\nfor  renewal  made by the private operators   and   directed<br \/>\nthat substantive permits for these routes should  be granted<br \/>\nto   the appellant.  The order of the R.T.A. dated  May\t 10,<br \/>\n1965  was challenged by the private operators  in  different<br \/>\nCivil  Applications.  One of the  applications\twas  Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No. 488 of 1965.  In this application, one<br \/>\nof  the prayers was to the effect that pending the  decision<br \/>\nof the application the R.T.A. should be directed to maintain<br \/>\nstatus\tquo.   Clause 3 of the prayer was to  the  following<br \/>\neffect:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;That pending the decision of this application<br \/>\n\t      the  R.T.A.  Nagpur be  directed\tto  maintain<br \/>\n\t      status quo viz., to grant temporary permit  to<br \/>\n\t      the   petitioner as it has been done upto\t now<br \/>\n\t      on  the  routes  Chikhli-Buldana\tand  Chikhli<br \/>\n\t      Deulgaonraja   on\t which\tthe  petitioner\t  is<br \/>\n\t      operating his vehicles.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      On  June\t4,  1965  Paranipe,  J.\t ordered  as<br \/>\n\t      follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Rule.   Expedite hearing at Nagpur  on  21-6-<br \/>\n\t      1965.   In  the  meantime\t R.T.A.\t Nagpur\t  to<br \/>\n\t      maintain status quo in terms of Clause 3.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The  interim  order was subsequently confirmed by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  and  all\t the petitions were  directed  to  be  heard<br \/>\ntogether.\n<\/p>\n<p>During the pendency of the Special Civil Applications in the<br \/>\nHigh Court an application was made to the R.T.A. jointly  on<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellant and the private operators.  A  &#8216;copy<br \/>\nof  that  application  is included as  document\t no.  17  in<br \/>\nSpecial\t Civil\tApplication  No.  575.0\t 1967.\t The   joint<br \/>\napplication  stated  that  the\tappellant  and\tthe  private<br \/>\noperators, with a view to end all litigation, had agreed  to<br \/>\nsettle the matter on certain terms. One\t the terms was\tthat<br \/>\nthe Special Civil applications filed were to. be  withdrawn.<br \/>\nThe application for compromise was considered by the  R.T.A.<br \/>\nat  its\t meeting  held on September 10\tand  11,  1965.\t The<br \/>\nprivate\t operators  including respondent No. 1\tassured\t the<br \/>\nR.T.A.\tthat they would withdraw the petitions\t pending  in<br \/>\nthe High Court.\t Upon &#8216;such assurance the R.T.A.  considered<br \/>\nthe  matter  at the meeting and after  hearing\tthe  parties<br \/>\ndecided\t that  the  appellant who  was\tgranted\t substantive<br \/>\npermits\t by  its order dated May 10,  1965,  would  commence<br \/>\noperation on the routes described in Sch. &#8216;A&#8217; from  November<br \/>\n1, 1965.  In regard to the routes mentioned in Sch. &#8216;B&#8217;\t for<br \/>\nwhich  also  the  appellant  had  been\tgranted\t substantive<br \/>\npermits by the order of\t the  R.T.A. dated May 10, 1965, the<br \/>\nappellant  was to be permitted to coramence  operation\tfrom<br \/>\nJuly 1, 1965 and the private operators including  respondent<br \/>\nNo.  1\twere  to be allowed to operate on  these  routes  on<br \/>\ntemporary permits until June 30, 1967.\tThis interval<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 329, 1969 SCR (1) 808 Author: V Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE.AMRAVATI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/08\/1968 BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-86829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-03T23:45:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T23:45:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\"},\"wordCount\":1084,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\",\"name\":\"Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-08-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-03T23:45:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-03T23:45:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968","datePublished":"1968-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T23:45:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2"},"wordCount":1084,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2","name":"Maharashtra State Road ... vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor ... on 22 August, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-08-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-03T23:45:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharashtra-state-road-vs-shri-balwant-regular-motor-on-22-august-1968-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharashtra State Road &#8230; vs Shri Balwant Regular Motor &#8230; on 22 August, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86829","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}