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 : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys66
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. In these several Writ Petitions by the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department impugning the validity of certain orders passed against them by an officer of the Department in disciplinary proceedings instituted against them, certain common points of law arise. Therefore, they have been heard together. The learned counsel on both sides, for the sake of convenient disposal of these cases, addressed us in the first instance on these general points of law and thereafter proceeded to deal with the facts and circumstances peculiar to individual cases. We propose to follow the same method in disposing of these cases.2. The common points fall under two categories : The first of them deals with the competency of the officer who made the orders and the second with the correctness or validity of the orders in the light of the rules and standing orders governing the procedure in respect of disciplinary action.3. The particular officer, whose competency is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1963]47ITR101(AP)
JAGANMOHAN REDDY J. - These are a batch of four writ petitions filed by the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, for prohibiting the Income-tax Officer, B-1, B-Ward, Hyderabad, from collecting any tax or taking any proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act against the petitioner and seeking to quash the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer, dated February 29, 1960, for the year 1958-59 levying a tax of Rs. 13,60,963.86 nP. for the period, January 11, 1958, to March 31, 1958, and for the year 1959-60 levying a tax of Rs. 34,44,430.48 nP. for the period of 1st April, 1958, to 31st March, 1959.It may be stated that the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) was established under the Road Transport Corporations Act (LXIV of 1950), by a notification issued by the State Government under that Act and has been functioning with effect from January 11, 1958. Prior to the formation of the Corporation, the Road Transport was a department of th...
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 : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964AP407; (1962)IILLJ639AP
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. These two petitions, filed under Article 228 of the Constitution of India, raise identical question for decision, and it will be convenient to dispose of them in a common judgment.2. The petitioner in the former of the petitions was a mechanic in the service of the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad ; and the petitioner in the other petition was a conductor. The respondent in both the petitions is the Chief Executive Officer of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of convenience, as 'the Corporation'),3. For a better appreciation of the contentions raised before us, it will be convenient to set out in brief outline the antecedent history of the Corporation. Originally, the Road Transport Department of the erstwhile Hyderabad State was providing road transport services in the territories which formed part of that State. The Department was there functioning as a State Transport Unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal116,67CWN361,[1962(5)FLR57]
ORDERB.N. Banerjee, J.1. At a time when road transportation was a department of the Government of West Bengal, the petitioner was appointed, in the year 1949, as a temporary store clerk in the Hastings Street Garage. He was thereafter promoted as a temporary store-keeper in the Lake Depot. On and from August 16, 1954, the petitioner became a store-keeper, on a temporary basis, in the central Workshop. At all times material for the purposes of this Rule, the petitioner was receiving a substantive pay of Rs. 172/- per month.2. With effect from June 15, 1960, the Government of West Bengal established a Road Transport Corporation, known as the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act 1950. The services of the petitioner stood transferred to the Calcutta State Transport Corporationwhich took over the local transport business of the State Government.3. On August 16, 1960, the petitioner was charged with several heads...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal421,[1963(6)FLR378],(1963)IILLJ569Cal
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. These two applications under Article 226 of the Constitution were by consent directed to be heard together because they raise the same points of controversy. There is a minor difference between them but that is not very material and I shall deal with that difference later on. 2. The petitioners are drivers employed under the Durgapur Steel Project under the Hindusthan Steel Limited. The first petitioner in Rule No. 4052 of I960 was appointed on the 1st April, 1957 pursuant to an offer made on the 26th March. His services were terminated on the 20th June, 1959. He did not obtain the Rule until as late as 19th September, 1960. The petitioner in the other Rule, Bimal Chandra Majumdar was appointed on the 21st September, 1957 on an offer made on the llth September 1957. His services were terminated on the 14th April, 1959. He did not obtain this Rule until 17th January, 1S61. Delay has been urged as a ground in both the cases on which it has been contended that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963AP491; 1963CriLJ601
Narsimham, J. 1. This is a revision presented by the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad against his conviction for an offence under Section 123(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) for causing or allowing Bus No. APZ 917 belonging to the Corporation to run without a road permit from Hyderabad to Adilabad, and sentence of Rs. 100/- fine, or in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks.2. The facts are not in controversy. On 30-6-1961 the Delux Bus APZ 917 was found running from Hyderabad to Adilabad without a road permit. The Bus driver and the Chief Executive Officer were prosecuted before the Munsif Magistrate of Boath for an offence under Section 123(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Bus driver, who was accused No. 1 in the case pleaded guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-. The Chief Executive Officer, accused No. 2 in the case, was also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1964]51ITR441(P& H)
INDER DEV DUA J. - This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution by the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation for quashing the assessment order dated January 31, 1961, passed by the Income-tax Officer, respondent No. 1.According to the allegations in the writ petition, the petitioner-corporation was established on January 7, 1956, under section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act), vide annexure 'B'. This Act had come into force in the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union on March 10, 1955, vide annexure 'A'. The petitioner-corporation was reconstituted on October 29, 1956, vide annexure 'C', and subsequently the Provincial Transport Controller, Punjab, was appointed a member in place of the Joint Provincial Transport Controller. The objects for establishing the petitioner-corporation are stated to have been laid down in section 3 of the Act and its general duty in section 18. The petitioner took over with effect from October 16,...
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!