Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1968Kant104; AIR1968Mys104
Somnath Iyer, J.(1) The two petitioners before us, who operate their stage carriages along the route, which is between a place called Yadgir. which is in the new State of Mysore, and Narayanapet, which is in the State of Andhra Pradesh, call in question a scheme prepared under Chapter IV-A of the Mysore Motor Vehicles Act, by which there was nationalisation of motor transport with respect to that route. The draft scheme which was prepared under section 68-C was published on June 21, 1962. The objections preferred by the petitioner and others under section 68-D were heard by the Chief Minister of the State of Mysore, who approved the scheme with modifications, by an order made by him on March 7, 1964. Since the route was an inter-State route, the publication of the draft scheme was postponed until June 27, 1964, Meanwhile, the approval of the Central Government had been accorded under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 68-D of the Act.(2) The approved scheme made two modification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1970)1MLJ300
ORDERM. Anantanarayanan, C.J. 1. These writ proceedings involve, essentially, the validity of a scheme said to have been framed and promulgated by the first respondent, namely, the Madras State transport undertaking, here represented by its Director, Mr. T.V. Venkataraman, under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Chapter IV-A). The writs seek to restrain both the first respondent and the State of Madras (second respondent), from proceeding further with this promulgated scheme, under the relevant sections of the law, on the grounds exhibited in the writ petitions. As is well known, and I do not think that it is necessary, for this purpose, to proceed into the history of the prerogative writ of prohibition in the United Kingdom, a writ of prohibition issues ex debito justitiae, where absence of jurisdiction can be demonstrated ; it is not the power to nationalise the road transport service which is in issue, nor the scheme of the relevant sections ; what is claimed is that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 4(1968)DLT330
T.V.R. Tatachari, J. (1) This Revision Application was filed against the judgment of Shri R.N. Aggarwal, Sessions Judge, Mahasu, dated 12th June 1967, in Crinainal Appeal No. 9 M/14 of 1966, on his file, dismissing the said appeal and confirming the judgment of Shri Nihal Singh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Mahasu District, Kasumti, dated 30th.November 1965 whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner herein under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Passanger and Goods Act, and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 250.00, and in default of payment of the fine immediately, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. (2) The facts which have given rise to this Revision Application may be stated briefly. On 18th August 1965, Shri M. L. Gupta, Excise and Taxation Inspector, checked Bus No. PNS-596 at Solan. The bus was being driven by one Kanshi Ram and was being conducted by Ved Raj. The bus was owned by Simla Hills Transport Service Limited, which is a limited Company. On checking, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC1095; [1968]3SCR198
Ramaswami, J. 1. These appeals are brought by special leave from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated October 27, 1967 dismissing Writ Petitions Nos. 1720 and 1722 of 1964. 2. The appellants are transport operators plying a stage carriage on the route Yadgir to Narayanapet on the strength of permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Gulbarga. The route Yadgir to Narayanapet is an inter-State route of a distance of 28 miles out of which a portion of 5 miles is situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the rest is in the State of Mysore. A draft scheme was prepared by the second respondent, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation under s. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, proposing to take over the Stage Carriage Services on the inter-State route Yadgir to Narayanapet to the complete exclusion of other operators. The draft scheme was published in the Gazette on June 21, 1962. The appellants and some others filed their objections against the proposed scheme. The objection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1969Raj68; (1969)IILLJ44Raj
ORDERKan Singh, J. 1. These are two identical writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Writ Petition No. 592 of 1967 is by one Kailash Chandra Jain. Writ Petition No. 578 of 1967 is by the State Roadways Workers Union, Jaipur. They concern the legality of certain orders of transfer in respect of certain employees of what was the Roadways Department of the State Government. The employees came to be transferred by the impugned orders to other departments of the State Government. The petitioners pray for appropriate writs, directions or orders in these matters. 2. It will be convenient to narrate the facts with reference to Kailash Chandra Jain's writ petition. 3. Kailash Chandra Jain came to be appointed as a Conductor on 7-4-1960 in what was then the State Roadways Department of the Government of Rajas than. With effect from 1st October, 1964, Rajasthan State Roadways Corporation was constituted in pursuance of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The Corporation was a bod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP150; 1968MPLJ854
Dixit, C.J.1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petitions Nos. 112, 131, 151, 152, 153, 229, 249, 295,367, 368, 374, 512 and 537, all of 1966 and Misc. Petition No. 45 of 1967.2. In all these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the validity of Schemes, described as Schemes Nos. 13, 14, 19, 23, 26, 33, 42, 60 and 61, published by the State Government under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act), has been challenged. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 68-C of the Act, the Madhya Pra-desh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), constituted under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, published proposals in various issues of the Gazette propounding the aforestated Schemes for the running and operation by the Corporation of road transport services on the routes specified in the Schemes. The notifications publishing the Schemes invited the persons affected by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1969)71BOMLR713; (1969)IILLJ619Bom; 1969MhLJ171
Abhyankar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of both the petitions. 2. The petitioner in Special Civil Application NO. 1106 is the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, while the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1169 of 1966 is Madhukar Narayanrao Lanjewar, who was an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. For the sake of brevity, the petitioner-Corporation will hereafter be referred to as the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. 3. Prior to the first reorganization of States in 1956, there was in operation in Vidarbha a Government undertaking called the Provincial Transport Services under Government ownership. As a result of the reorganization of States, the Provincial Transport Services operating in the Vidarbha region which became a part, firstly of the new State of Bombay, and then of the State of Maharashtra, continued to be operation by the same organization. Corresponding to these services there were in operation transport service...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1968KAR965
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, published on August 18, 1964, a draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the operation of its services on certain routes in the Districts of Coorg, South Kanara and Chikmagalur. This scheme which will be referred to as the Mangalore Scheme in the course of this judgment, was approved by the Chief Minister under Section 68-D of the Act on July 28, 1967. The approved scheme is impeached in these ten writ petitions on more than one ground by persons who were operating on some one or the other of the notified routes enumerated in the approved scheme.2. On behalf of the petitioners six submissions were made. The first was that there was no application of the judicious mind by the Chief Minister to the question whether the scheme was in public interest and also to the question whether it results in an efficient, adequate econo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1969Kant319; AIR1969Mys319; (1969)1MysLJ359
somnath iyer, J.1. On December 18, 1963 the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, which will be referred to in the course of this judgment as the Corporation, published a scheme which it had prepared under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. This scheme appeared in the gazette bearing the date January 2, 1964, but on account of a technical defect it was withdrawn and on October 8, 1964 another scheme was published. Both schemes related to certain routes in the districts of Kolar and Bangalore Objections were produced to the approval of the scheme. But by an order made by the Chief Minister under Section 68-D on January 10, 1968 has accorded his approval to the scheme with minor modifications.2. In these 56 writ petitions the principal question with which we are concerned is what concerns the validity of the scheme, which will be referred to the course of this judgment as the approved scheme.3. The main argument on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H18
Mehar Singh, C.J.1. The appellant-company, the Fatehgarh Bus Service (Private) Limited, Sirhind, in Patiala District, carries on the business of passenger transport, holding four permits for carriage of passengers, operating with twelves return trips on Ahmedgarh-Bassi route via Kara and Chawa. On December 8, 1967, respondent 1, the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab granted one temporary passenger carnage transport permit, with two daily return trips, to each of the two respondents, 2 and 3, respectively the Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, and the Pepsu Road Transport. Corporation, Patiala, for the Ludhiana-Rararoute via Chawa. The route of the temporary permits of respondents 2 and 3 overlaps by about nine miles the route with the appellant-company.2. On January 10, 1968, the appellant-company made a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to have the order, dated December 8, 1967, Annexure 'A' to the petition, of respondent 1 granting temporary permits to respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!