| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/483848 |
| Subject | Motor Vehicles;Insurance |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Decided On | Sep-23-1998 |
| Case Number | C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998 |
| Judge | B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ. |
| Reported in | 1998(4)AWC62 |
| Acts | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 146; Constitution of India - Article 226 |
| Appellant | Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others |
| Respondent | Union of India and Others |
| Appellant Advocate | U.C. Mishra, Adv. |
| Respondent Advocate | S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs. |
| Cases Referred | S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]motor vehicles - motor insurance - section 146 of motor vehicles act, 1988 and article 226 of constitution of india - tariff advisory committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in order passed by tariff advisory committee and stay cannot be granted. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc.....Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]b.k. roy and r.k. mahajan, jj.1. the petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the tariff advisory committee (respondent no. 6) as contained in annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.2. sri u. c. mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this court in which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.3. a division bench of the calcutta high court in f.m.a. no. 306 of 1977 with c.o.t. no. 18084 of 1997. w.p. no. 4260 (w) of 1998 and 5278 (w).....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the Constitution of India to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 13include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 14include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 15include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs Union of India and Others - Citation 483848 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '483848', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51348/motor-vehicles-act-1988-complete-act">Motor Vehicles Act, 1988</a> - Sections 146; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Article 226', 'appealno' => 'C.M.W.P. No. 21685 of 1998', 'appellant' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Krishan Swaroop Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others', 'casenote' => 'Motor Vehicles - motor insurance - Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Article 226 of Constitution of India - Tariff Advisory Committee revised motor insurance third party premium of all class of vehicles - writ against such Order and prayer for stay - no irregularity in Order passed by Tariff Advisory Committee and stay cannot be granted.<br> - U.P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION & LANDS REFORMS ACT, 1951 [Act No. 1/1951]. Section 3(4) & U.P. Land Revenue Act, (3 of 1901). Sections 14-A (3) & 14; [S.Rafat Alam, R.K.Agarwal & Ashok Bhushan, JJ] Expression Collector- Held, It includes Additional Collector. Powers and functions of Collector can be exercised by Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, provided he has been so directed by Collector of the District. [1996 AIHC 3628 Overruled]. - We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and;', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => ' U.C. Mishra, Adv.', 'counseldef' => ' S.C., ;S.N. Srivastava and ;Chandra Prakash, Advs.', 'court' => 'Allahabad', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1998-09-23', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.K. Roy and ;R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.</p><p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.</p><p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.</p><p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.</p><p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.</p><p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;</p><p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-</p><p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.</p><p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-</p><p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.</p><p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.</p><p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.</p><p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'</p><p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.</p><p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.</p><p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '1998(4)AWC62', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'Union of India and Others', 'sub' => 'Motor Vehicles;Insurance', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $args = array( (int) 0 => '483848', (int) 1 => 'krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/483848/krishan-swaroop-gupta-vs-union-india' $ctype = ' High Court' $caseref = 'S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and<br>' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.', (int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioners have come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.1.1998 passed by the Tariff Advisory Committee (Respondent No. 6) as contained in Annexure-3 revising the motor insurance third party premium of all classes of vehicles with effect from the dates mentioned therein.', (int) 2 => '<p>2. Sri U. C. Mishra. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that several writ petitions have been admitted by this Court In which interim orders have also been passed staying the operation of the impugned order and. therefore, we should also admit this writ petition and stay the operation of the impugned order.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A. No. 306 of 1977 with C.O.T. No. 18084 of 1997. W.P. No. 4260 (W) of 1998 and 5278 (W) of 1998 vide judgment dated June 26. 1998 has already upheld the validity of the Impugned order.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. We may also point out that the Apex Court had on earlier occasion considered somewhat a similar order which was impugned before it in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others V. Union of India and others, AIR 1992 SC 2626 : 1992 Supp (2) SCC 125. It disposed of the cases with directions that on zonal basis representations should be received and existing representations also could be taken into consideration and groupwise hearing should be afforded at all States' or Union territory headquarters without disturbing the escalation already adopted and thereafter the impugned decision has been taken by the Tariff Advisory Committee.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. We further find that in one of the cases bearing C.M.W.P. No. 11306 of 1998 of this Court, an interim order was granted against which petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8674 of 1998 was preferred before the Supreme Court. That Special Leave to Appeal, however, was dismissed observing that at this stage it should not interfere and the petitioner (TariffAdvisory Committee) can move the High Court for appropriate relief vide its order dated 31.7.1998. The order of the Supreme Court reads thus ;', (int) 6 => '<p>'S.L.P. (C) No. 8674 of 1998-', (int) 7 => '<p> We do not think that at this stage we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that, having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition isdismissed.', (int) 8 => '<p> T.P. (C) Nos. 517-522 of 1998-', (int) 9 => '<p> These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139A of the <a>Constitution of India</a> to transfer writ applications filed in different High Court by Operators of Stage Carriages and others challenging Section 64 of the Insurance Act. 1938 and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others, v. Union of India and others, 1992 Supp 2 SCC 125, the questions raised in various High Courts stand concluded leaving no scope for further arguments. In the circumstances, the learned Attorney General prays for transfer of some of the cases pending In various High Courts for convenient disposal to this Court.', (int) 10 => '<p> Notice was issued by an order of this Court on 3.4.1998 in C.M.P. No. '5692 of 1998 in O.P. No. 31922 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High Court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.', (int) 11 => '<p> The learned Attorney General has given further list of cases pending in various High Courts and requested those cases (list enclosed) also be transferred to the file of this Court. We direct the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out appropriate petitions for transferring those cases to be disposed of along with the cases in which notices had been ordered (supra). Subject to the filing of such petitions notices will be issued In those cases as well.', (int) 12 => '<p> In the meanwhile final disposal of the cases pending in different High Courts all over the country touching the issues mentioned above shall remain stayed till the disposal of the cases transferred to this Court. However, this will not prevent the High Court from dealing with and disposing of the interlocutory applications.'', (int) 13 => '<p>6. In view of the directions made vide order dated 31.7.98 by the Apex Court in T. C. (P) No. 517-522 of 1998 referred to above, we are not passing orders in regard to the merit of the writ petition and proceed to consider the question of grant of Interim relief only.', (int) 14 => '<p>7. As already stated, Mr. Mishra contended that since interim orders have already been passed in various writ petitions, we should also pass same order.', (int) 15 => '<p>8. Normally, we would have acceded to this request. However, having regard to the view expressed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, which was not available earlier, with which we prima facie agree, and the observations made by the Supreme Court in Joint Council of Bus Syndicate and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the Supreme Court did not disturb the escalation already adopted, coupled with another Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in S. Narayan Iyer v. Union of India and another. AIR 1976 SC 1986 (which has already been referred to in the Calcutta Division Bench Judgment) where a writ petition challenging the telephone rates asunjust and unreasonable, which presumably was not considered by the Court earlier while granting interim relief to other petitioners, as it is not the case of Mr. Mishra that they were considered, was held to be not maintainable, though in slightly different circumstances, we refuse to stay the operation of the impugned order in the instant writ petition. The petition for grant of interim relief is, thus, rejected.', (int) 16 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 17 $i = (int) 16include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109