Supreme Court : Holder Of LMV Driving License Doesn't Need Separate Authorisation To Drive Transport Vehicle Weighing Less Than 7500 KG

 131. Our conclusions following the above discussion are as under:

(I) A driver holding a license for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, Under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7,500 kg, is permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization Under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the 'Transport Vehicle' class. For licensing purposes, LMVs and Transport Vehicles are not entirely separate classes. An overlap exists between the two. The special eligibility requirements will however continue to apply for, inter alia, e-carts, e- rickshaws, and vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

(II) The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasizes the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a 'Transport Vehicle,' does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.

(III) The additional eligibility criteria specified in the MV Act and MV Rules generally for driving 'transport vehicles' would apply only to those intending to operate vehicles with gross vehicle weight exceeding 7,500 kg i.e. 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger vehicle', 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger vehicle'.

(IV) The decision in Mukund Dewangan (2017) is upheld but for reasons as explained by us in this judgment. In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.

132. The reference is answered in the above terms.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018, 

Decided On: 06.11.2024

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I., Hrishikesh Roy, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/1178/2024, 2024 INSC 840, 2024 INSC 840.

Print Page

No Automatic Vacation Of Stay Orders Of HCs On Civil & Criminal Trials : Supreme Court Overturns 'Asian Resurfacing' Judgment

 In other words, applying the above analogy or principle, the stay order granted in any proceedings would not automatically stand vacated on the expiry of a particular period until and unless an application to that effect has been filed by the other side and is decided following the principles of natural justice by a speaking order. {Para 46}

47. Sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing injustice. Asian ResurfacingAsian Resurfacing is a clear example of the same. Such a situation created ought to be avoided in the normal course or if at all it arises be remedied at the earliest. In doing so, we have to adopt a practical and a more pragmatic approach rather than a technical one which may create more problems burdening the courts with superfluous or useless work. It is well said that useless work drives out the useful work. Accordingly, it is expedient in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023.

Decided On: 29.02.2024

High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.I., Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.B. Pardiwala, Manoj Misra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Authored By : Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, Pankaj Mithal

Citation: MANU/SC/0149/2024.

Print Page