Allahabad High Court
YUSUF FAIYAZversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The transport authority cannot intervene in private ownership disputes; the petition for a bus permit was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Yusuf Faiyaz, sought a writ directing the transport authority to issue a permit for bus No. UTC 1383, claiming he needed the permit to recover the bus that his mother had originally owned. The bus had been transferred by the mother to her brothers‑in‑law, who subsequently sold it to a third party, Neelam Devi, and the registration was amended to reflect the new owner. The petitioner argued that the sale involved fraud and that the transport authority should intervene to help him retrieve the vehicle. The court observed that any alleged fraud in the transaction must be addressed by the petitioner and his mother through appropriate legal pleading and proof, and that the transport authority lacks jurisdiction to intervene in such private ownership disputes. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The transport authority's jurisdiction to issue a permit for a bus when the ownership is contested and alleged fraud is involved
Subjects
- bus permit
- ownership dispute
- transport authority
- fraud
- writ petition
- vehicle recovery
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14393 of 2026
Yusuf Faiyaz
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ansar Ahmad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned advocate holding the brief appears for petitioner
and submits, his client is seeking issuance of permit to run bus no. UTC 1383.
For the purpose, his client made representation dated 23rd July, 2023 to the
Director General of Police (DGP). Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate,
Chief Standing Counsel appears for State.
2. On perusal of the petition it appears, petitioner's mother had made over the
bus to her brothers-in-law. Said persons sold away the bus to one Neelam
Devi and at present the bus stands registered accordingly. By means of
obtaining permit, petitioner hopes to retrieve the bus.
3. Petitioner has also said that his mother went from pillar to post to get back
the bus. When her brothers-in-law have dealt with the bus given to them,
petitioner and his mother must seek recovery from the brothers-in-law. Upon
document of sale produced before the transport authority, the transfer was
recorded and the registration certificate accordingly amended to show
purchaser as owner. In event there is element of fraud in the transaction,
petitioner and his mother must seek remedy by pleading and proving the
fraud. The transport authorities cannot do anything to assist petitioner and his
mother.
4. On above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
September 17, 2026
Mohini
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MOHINI RAI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…