RAMASWAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition for a declaration declaring the Sub-rules 8 to 11 of Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989 as ultra vires the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said Sub-rules are violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. THE said Sub rules classified the claims under three categories :

(3.) COMING to the classification of semi literate and literate under Sub- rules (9) and (10), they are clear that a duty is cast upon the Presiding Officer to explain the procedure to deposit so that the semi-literate or the literate claimant can understand the reason for depositing the amount and if he thinks that he will be more benefited, if the amount is disbursed instead of keeping it in deposit, it is for such claimant to convince the Presiding Officer with regard to the reasonableness of the withdrawal. The discretion has been granted to the Presiding Officer to consider the necessity of the claimant to withdraw the amount and if the necessity alleged falls within the reasonableness or necessity, naturally, the claimant will be permitted to withdraw the amount. The classification also cannot be said to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said Sub- rules themselves are very clear as to why the different classification has been made in respect of the claimants. According to the classifications, the Presiding Officer is expected to discharge the functions either in making a direction to deposit or in permitting the claimant to withdraw. The classification itself is satisfying the nexus or the reason for such a classification. Hence, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced with regard to the validity of the said Sub-rules.