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 : 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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC82; [1961]1SCR642
Subba Rao, J.1. These petitions are filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of the enforcement of the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on the business of motor transport in West Godavari District in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the issuance of writs of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions to quash the schemes of road transport services as finally approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on March 21, 1960, and for other incidental reliefs. 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by s. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), as amended by the Central Act 100 of 1956, (hereinafter called the Act), Shri Guru Pershad, the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter called the Transport Corporation) published seven proposals dated December 7, 1959, in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated December 17, 1959, propounding seven schemes for the nationalization of the road transport in respect of different parts of W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1135; 1962(0)BLJR565; [1999]Supp1SCR728
Hidayatullah, J. 1. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1961 will dispose of Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 539 of 1961. In these appeals, private operators of omnibuses challenge the orders of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, by which it set aside the renewal of the permits on certain routes granted by the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna. The appellants held previously stage carriage permits over certain routes which were due to expire in December, 1958 or in January, 1959. They had applied for renewal of their permits under s. 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under a scheme framed and notified on July 8, 1957, vide Notification No. P-2-203/57T/4794, the route, Gaya to Khijirsarai, was notified under s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Rajya Transport, Bihar, was exclusively allowed to operate on the that route. In Civil Appeals Nos. 535 to 538 of 1961, the Rajya Transport, Bihar, filed objections against the renewal of the permits. In Civil Appeals ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1963SC1890; [1964]3SCR686
Mudholkar, J.1. This judgment will also govern C.A. No. 123 of 1963. These two appeals have come up before this Court by virtue of special leave granted by it on April 27, 1960. 2. The appellants before us were plaintiffs in suits instituted by them before the second Joint Civil Judge (S.D). Ahmedabad, in which they challenged the validity of certain proceedings instituted by the then Government of Bombay for acquiring a piece of land belonging to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of constructing a bus depot required by the State Transport Corporation and for constructing office and other buildings by the said Corporation. The appellants, in addition, sought an injunction restraining the State of Bombay and the State Transport Corporation from proceeding with the acquisition and dispossessing them. The suit was founded on a number of grounds but ultimately when the matter went up to the High Court in second appeal Mr. Rajni Patel who appeared for the appellants based the claim only on t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC492; (1964)66BOMLR244; [1964]4SCR299
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the two respondents were acquitted. The prosecution case briefly was that one Dongarsingh, a discharged truck driver from the army, was in need of employment. Towards the end of October 1955 he made an application to the District Soldiers' Board, Dhulia praying for help in securing employment. This application was forwarded to the Divisional Controller of the State Transport Corporation at Dhulia and Dongarsingh was asked by the Corporation to make a formal application on a printed from to be obtained on payment of As. 0-2-0. Accordingly Dongarsingh applied for a printed form sometime in November 1955 which he received on November 19, 1955. Thereafter Dongarsingh met Sheikh Ahmed (respondent No. 2) who was in service in the said department at Jamner and asked him for help. Sheikh Ahmed told Dongarsingh that Jagatsingh (respondent No. 1) who was an officer in the State Transport Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC962; [1964]6SCR330
Ayyangar J.1. This batch of 11 Appeals which have been consolidated for hearing aredirected against the common judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh andare before us on the grant of a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1) of theConstitution by the said High Court. 2. The proceedings concerned in the appeals arise out of Writ Petitionsfiled before the High Court by the several appellants before us under Art. 226of the Constitution challenging the validity of three Schemes framed underChapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, nationalising motor transport incertain areas in the Kurnool District of the State of Andhra Pradesh which forconvenience we shall refer to as the impugned Schemes. The appellants whoimpugn the validity of the schemes are the previously existing motor transportoperators whose permits are liable to be modified or cancelled under the provisionsof the Schemes on their coming into force. The impugned schemes were publishedby Government as G.O.Ms. 292, 293 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1486; [1964]34CompCas473(SC); [1994]52ITR524(SC); [1964]7SCR17
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. These four appeals arise from four writ petitions filed by the appellant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Hyderabad, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in which it claimed a writ of prohibition restraining them from collecting any tax, or taking any proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act against them. In its writ petitions, the appellant further claimed an order, writ, or other appropriate direction quashing the assessment orders passed by respondent No. 1 on the 29th February, 1960, for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the first year, a tax of Rs. 13,60,963.86nP. has been imposed for the period January 11, 1958, to March 31, 1958, and for the latter year, a tax of Rs. 34,44,430.48nP. has been levied for the period April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. After hearing the parties, the High Court has dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!