TARIFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE Vs. HAJJAN NANHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 is dismissed.

(2.) These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139-A of the Constitution of India Co transfer the writ applications filed in different High courts by operators of stage carriages and others challenging Section 64-UC 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 the 9 central government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Jt. council of Bus Syndicate v. Union of India 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 ofthe cases pending in various High courts for convenient disposal to this court.

(3.) Notice was issued by an order of this court on 3/4/1998 only in CMP No. 5692 of 1998 in OP No. 3192 of 1998 pending on the file of the Kerala High court. Issue notices in the rest of the cases.