J. Krishnamoorthy Vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

J. Krishnamoorthy vs The State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 04, 1993

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/814476

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/814476
Court: Chennai High Court
Decided On: Mar 04, 1993
Subject: Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- T.N. DISTRICT POLICE ACT, 1859 [Act No. 24/1859]. Section 10 & Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 14(b), Clause (iv) Explanation (1); [A.P. Shah,C.J., F.M. Ibrajhim Kalifulla & V. Ramasubramanian, JJ] Rule 14(b),CI.(iv) Explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benef...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

J. Krishnamoorthy

Respondent

The State of Tamil Nadu and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: (batch) (K.V. Sekar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.). In
Reported In: (1993)1MLJ629

Excerpt

.....then fall under any one of the two explanations under clause (iv) of rule 14(b) and make him ineligible for the current selection or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. -- t.n. district police act, 1859. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. but it is well settled that if a rule passes the twin tests of (i) being founded on an intelligible differentia, and (ii) such differentia having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it cannot be said to be violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. the impugned rule creates a classification of persons, who were not involved in criminal cases and persons, who were involved in criminal cases. the object of creating such a classification is to ensure that only those persons, whose character and antecedents were beyond and shadow of doubt alone, are permitted entry into the police service of the state. the rule is only a reflection of the intention of the government to maintain purity of administration. the rule merely provides a check post or a filter point, to ensure that only those, who had a clean record of personal life, are admitted into the system. that the existing system, has already come under heavy dose of criticism, cannot be swept under the carpet. therefore, as an employer, the..........which reads as follows:basic contract carriage permit issued under section 74 of the motor vehicles act, 1988.there is a fallacy in this contention. no doubt section 88(8) of the act merely refers to permits granted under sections 72, 74 and sub-section 9 of section 88. but, section 74 which is the relevant section in this case prescribed that a regional transport authority may, on an application made to it under section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit; provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application. it is not necessary to consider whether the petitioner had applied for a larger area or not. the permit issued is very clear in its terms and it is mentioned in paragraph 6 that the vehicle is to operate within a radius of 2 kms. from the place of business of the permit holder. that is said to be the radius/area for which the permit is valid. if the basic permit is not valid with reference to any area outside the radius of 2 kms. from the place of business of the permit holder, it goes without saying that under the provisions of section 88(8) of the act, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a holder of the permit under section 74 of the act for such area. hence, for the purpose of g.o.ms. no. 894, dated 29.5.1991, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a valid special permit holder under section 88(8) of the act, as he does not have any basic permit under section 74 of the act with reference to any area outside the radius of 2 kms. from the place of business. in the present case, it is seen from the copy of the special permit produced by the petitioner that it is issued pursuant to the orders of the high court of andhra pradesh in a writ petition and the permit has been granted to the permit holder to pick up passengers at madras. proviso (a) to g.o.ms. no. 894, dated 29.5.1991 is as.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Srinvasan, J.

1. This matter is covered by my order dated 26.2.1993 in W.P. Nos. 15923 of 1991 etc. (batch) (K.V. Sekar v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.). In those cases, I have held that the basic permit was only operative within a radius of 2 Kms. from the place of business of the permit holder and such basic permit would not enable the petitioner to claim the benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 894, dated 29.5.1991 by virtue of the special permit obtained by him under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short 'the Act'. In the present case, it is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the basic permit refers to Section 74 of the Act and it is the one issued under that section, with the result the provisions of Section 88(8) of the Act are satisfied. Learned Counsel refers to the caption at the top of the permit which reads as follows:

Basic contract carriage permit issued under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

There is a fallacy in this contention. No doubt Section 88(8) of the Act merely refers to permits granted under Sections 72, 74 and Sub-section 9 of Section 88. But, Section 74 which is the relevant section in this case prescribed that a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 73, grant a contract carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit; provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any area not specified in the application. It is not necessary to consider whether the petitioner had applied for a larger area or not. The permit issued is very clear in its terms and it is mentioned in paragraph 6 that the vehicle is to operate within a radius of 2 Kms. from the place of business of the permit holder. That is said to be the radius/area for which the permit is valid. If the basic permit is not valid with reference to any area outside the radius of 2 Kms. from the place of business of the permit holder, it goes without saying that under the provisions of Section 88(8) of the Act, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a holder of the permit under Section 74 of the Act for such area. Hence, for the purpose of G.O.Ms. No. 894, dated 29.5.1991, the petitioner cannot be considered to be a valid special permit holder under Section 88(8) of the Act, as he does not have any basic permit under Section 74 of the Act with reference to any area outside the radius of 2 Kms. from the place of business. In the present case, it is seen from the copy of the special permit produced by the petitioner that it is issued pursuant to the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a writ petition and the permit has been granted to the permit holder to pick up passengers at Madras. Proviso (a) to G.O.Ms. No. 894, dated 29.5.1991 is as follows:

the public service vehicles covered by special permits granted under Sub-section (8) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) by the transport authority of a State other than the State of Tamilnadu to pick up and get down passengers in the State of Tamil Nadu:

If the special permit relied on by the petitioner permits him to pick up passengers and get them down in the State of Tamilnadu and if such permit is issued by a State other than the State of Tamil Nadu proviso (a) will clearly govern and in the present case, there can be no doubt that proviso (a) is applicable. Consequently, the exemption granted by G.O.Ms. No. 894, dated 29.5.1991 is not available to the petitioner.

2. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, There will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1993 Same Parties J. Krishnamoorthy vs The State of Tamil Nadu and anr. Same Subject Motor Vehicles

Motor Vehicles