AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kilam, J.—This is a writ petition by one Mr. Hardutt which reveals a situation which is more or less intriguing. It is admitted on behalf of
Hardutt that the vehicle for plying which he had sought a permit from the Transport Department is not of the specifications provided by law, but it
is argued that similar vehicles with similar specifications are on the road and the denial of a permit to the petitioner alone is 'discriminatory'. That
there are such vehicles which are not in accordance with the specifications laid by the rules, has been admitted by Mr. Charanjit Lal who appeared
on behalf of the Transport Department and whose statement was recorded by me. Why should such vehicles whose specifications are not
according to law have been permitted to ply on the road and why should the petitioner be singled out for a treatment different from such other
people, is a matter which might raise a number of questions with which I may not feel myself very much concerned.
But this by itself would not entitle Hardutt to the grant of a writ. If the authorities have chosen to act against law in say, hundred cases, it does
not mean that I should force then to act in hundred and first case also in a similar manner. Hardutt should have no grievance if the law has been
enforced in his case. Some day I hope that the law will have its course in other similar cases as well which are this time being treated in a different
manner. For that day we might wait for the present. This writ petition is rejected.