Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1956SC294; (1956)58BOMLR978; [1956]1SCR18
Imam, J.1. By an order dated 12th May 1952, hereinafter referred to as the impugned order the Government of the State of Bombay requisitioned under section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the Requisition Act, the premises specified therein. The impugned order, so far as it is relevant to the present appeal, stated, 'Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Bombay Act XXXIII of 1948) the Government of Bombay is pleased to requisition the said part of the building for a public purpose, namely, for housing an Officer of the State Road Transport Corporation Which is a public utility service'. 2. The respondent filed a writ application under article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court and the application was heard by Tendolkar, J. who set aside the impugned order. Against his decision the appellant appealed and a Division Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959AP292
P. Chandra Reddy, Offg. C.J.1. These petitions are filed by several persons carrying on motor transport business in Krishna District for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash a common scheme No. T6/10/57 dated 5-11-1957 published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette as approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in G. 0. Ms. No. 58 Home (Transport IV) dated 7-1-1958 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, Part II (Extraordinary) dated 9-1-1958. The State of Andhra Pradesh published a scheme, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated transport service in the public interest to operate the transport services mentioned therein with effect from a date to he notified by the Government.This was done in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by the Act 100 of 1956 which introduced Chapter IV-A into the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. The transport service specified In the scheme covers all the routes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC308; [1959]Supp1SCR319
ORDER87. In view of the opinion of the majority the order approving the scheme is hereby quashed and a direction issued to the first respondent to forbear from taking over any of the routes in which the petitioners are engaged in transport business. This will not preclude the State Government from making the necessary enquiry in regard to the objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners will have liberty to file additional objections, if any. The parties to bear their own costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC648
Das, C.J.1. We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by our learned Brother Subba Rao and we agree with the order proposed by him, namely, that all the above appeals should be dismissed with costs, although we do not subscribe to all the reasons advanced by him. 2. The relevant facts and the several points raised by learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners in support of the appeals have been fully set out in the judgment which our learned Brother will presently deliver and it is not necessary for us to set out the same here. Without committing ourselves to all the reasons adopted by our learned Brother, we agree with his following conclusions, namely, (1) that the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act, 1955 (Act IX of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act, did not, on the passing of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (100 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, become wholly void under Art. 254(1) of the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1961Raj129
Jagat Narayan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Messrs. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, against the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, Rajas than,2. The facts, which have given rise to this petition, are these. The petitioner applied for grant of four temporary permits for plying stage carriages between Jaipur and Kotah on 25th November, 1954, and for grant of four non-temporary permits on the same route on 3rd December, 1954. It may be mentioned that there is no direct service between, Kotah and Jaipur so far. Buses ply between Kotah and Deoli and Deoli and Jaipur.The R. T. A. did not publish the applications for grant of non-temporary permits on account of a direction issued by the S. T. A by its resolution dated 24th January, 1955, asking the R. T. A. to open the Jaipur-Kotah route, on a temporary basis to assess the traffic potentiality. It authorised the. R. T. A, to issue two temporary permits along the route. The R....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC1376; [1960]1SCR580
Subba Rao, J.1. These appeals on certificates are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad, dismissing the petitions filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuing writs of certiorari to quash the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh confirming a scheme of nationalization on transport and the subsequent orders of the Regional Transport Authority cancelling the appellants' stage carriage permits. 2. These appeals are the off-shoot of the judgment of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation [1959] S.C.R. 319, delivered on November 5, 1958. The facts were fully stated therein. It would be only necessary to recapitulate briefly the facts relevant to the present enquiry : The appellants were carrying on motor transport business for several years in Krishna District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Guru Pershad, styled as the General Manager of the State Trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1572
Amudholkar, J. (1) This is a petition under Artt. 226 of the constitution and is directed against the order of the appellate committee of the State transport Authority. The relevant facts are as follows. The petitioner is a co operative society registered under the Hyderabad co operative Societies Act, XVI of 1952 and is carrying on the business of plying stage Carriage BusService in the Parbhani District (marathwada) of Bombay State, since December 1954. From 2.10.1955 the petitioner has been plying the stage carriage service on four routs. 1. Parbhani to Jintoor, 2. Jintoor to Saily via Mantha, 3. Aundhi to Hingoli,. 4. Jinotoor to Aundh, under susbtantial permits granted to it by the State Transport Authority of the former Huderabad State. These permits werefor a period of three years and expired on 1-10-1958. (2) On or about 19-5-1958, the divisional controller of the State Transport, Marathwada who is respondent No. 14 to this petition. made an application to the Regional Transpor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1960Ker321
ORDERVaidialingam, J. 1. In this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, who are the owners of Sy. Nos. 197/2 and 197/8 of Anchamada village, Trivandrum taluk, challenge the land acquisition proceedings taken by the State of Kerala, at the instance of the City Corporation, Trivandrum in respect of portions of the two survey numbers. The acquisition is also in respect of parts of certain other survey numbers belonging to otherowners and the petitioners are not interested inthem. 2. The main attack that is made by the petitioners in these proceedings is that the proposed acquisition is not intended for a 'public purpose' or to benefit the public and that it is only to benefit the third respondent. Therefore, the question to be decided is as to whether the proposed compulsory acquisition in this case, is for a 'Public Purpose' in which case alone, it will be saved under Article 31(2) of the Constitution. 3. The circumstances leading up to this application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP310
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is G. Krishna Reddy. The 1st respondent is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary, Home Department, Hyderabad. The second respondent is the Andhra Pradesh State Bond Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to for the sake of convenience as A.P.S.R.T.C.), represented by its Chairman. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying 'that this court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the discharge notice No. 02/3320/II, dated the 12th June, 1957 issued by the General Manager, Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Department (Now Chairman, State Road Transport Corporation) by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction and quash the same, and pass such other or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit.'2. The relevant facts which are necessary and sufficient for disposal of this writ petition in the view we take of the matter arise ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1961All214
ORDERJ.K. Tandon, J.1. This petition is by one Sri KashiPrasad Gupta who holds a stage carnage permit inrespect of Gorakhpur Gola via Khajni and Urwaroute under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Since 1955the strength of permits on this route was enlarged toten. There is another route in the same area whichis known by the name of Gorakhpur Gola via Khajni and Urwa Malhapur route. Its strength was twopermits. As they happened to be partly identicalroutes the Regional Transport Authority had permitted the operators on both the routes to ply oneither with the effect that the strength of the tworoutes put together became 12. 2. The petitioner claims that the traffic requirements of the routes did not justify the grant of 12 permits. For this reason, even though the strength of the first route had been increased from 7 to 10 in 1955, the additional permits were not granted until one was done in January 1958, second in April 1959 and the third in July 1959. Even then, in view of the insufficient...
Tag this Judgment!