REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

C.S.S. Motor Service, Tenkasi Appellant

V/S

State Of Madras Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of Madras, Home Department Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. THE WARREN BRIDGE ET. AL [REFERRED TO]
RANGELEY V. MIDLAND RLY. CO. [REFERRED TO]
MUNN V. PEOPLE OF ILLINOIS [REFERRED TO]
BUTCHERS UNION V. CRESCENT CITY CO. [REFERRED TO]
NEW ORLEANS GAS LIGHT CO. V. LOUISIANA LIGHT AND HEAT PRODUCING AND MFG. CO. [REFERRED TO]
NEW ORLEANS WATER WORKS CO. V. RIVERS [REFERRED TO]
POWELL V. PENSYLVANIA [REFERRED TO]
ALLGEYER V. STATE OF LOUSISIONA [REFERRED TO]
CALIFORNIA V. CENTRAL PACIFIC R. CO. [REFERRED TO]
LACHENER V. NEW YORK [REFERRED TO]
NOBLE STATE BANK V. HASKELL [REFERRED TO]
ATKIN V. CANSAS [REFERRED TO]
YICK V. HOPKINS [REFERRED TO]
MCLEAN V. ARKANSAS [REFERRED TO]
TYSON & BROTHER V. BANTON [REFERRED TO]
FROST V. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA [REFERRED TO]
GERMAN ALLIANCE INS. CO. V. LEWES [REFERRED TO]
ADAMS V. TANNER [REFERRED TO]
RIBNIK V. MCBRIDE [REFERRED TO]
LAWRENCE V. ST. LOUSSAN RANCIS R. CO. [REFERRED TO]
WOLF PACKING CO. V. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS [REFERRED TO]
PACKARD V. BANTON [REFERRED TO]
FROST V. RAILROAD COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
MICHIGAN PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. V. DUKE [REFERRED TO]
ABINGDON RURAL COUNCIL V. CITY OF OXFORD ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS [REFERRED TO]
MORRIS V. DUBY [REFERRED TO]
BUCK V. KAY KENDALL [REFERRED TO]
BUSH AND SONS V. MALOI [REFERRED TO]
MEYER V. NEBRASKA [REFERRED TO]
R. V. NAT BELL LIQUORS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
OLSON V. NEBRASKA [REFERRED TO]
NEW STATE ICE CO. V. LIABMANN [REFERRED TO]
NEBBIA V. NEW YORK [REFERRED TO]
STEPHENSON V. BINFORD [REFERRED TO]
SMITH V. CAHOON [REFERRED TO]
BRADLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES CO. [REFERRED TO]
STANLEY V. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
BASWASWARI SWAMI V. BELLARY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
NARHARSINGJI V. SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
SPROLES V. BINFORD [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE V. BARNWELL BROS. [REFERRED TO]
PRESIDENT DISTRICT BOARD,KISTNA V. LAKSHMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
LOVELL V. GRIFFIN [REFERRED TO]
HAGUE V. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION [REFERRED TO]
SCHNEIDER V. IRVINGTON [REFERRED TO]
LARGENT V. TEXAS [REFERRED TO]
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V. BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES [REFERRED TO]
SRI RAMA VILAS SERVICE LTD. V. ROAD TRAFFIC BOARD,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
RAILROAD COMMISSION V. ROWENAN NICHOLS OIL CO. [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. CENTRAL ROIG REFINING CO. [REFERRED TO]
R. V. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT [REFERRED TO]
ST. JOSEPH STOCK YARDS CO. V. UNITED STATES [REFERRED TO]
RASHID AHMED VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD KAIRANA OPPOSITE PARTY; AND UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANRAO VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL VS. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LOKANATH MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
S RAMAKRISHNAIAH VS. PRESIDENT DISTRICT BOARD NELLORE [REFERRED TO]
AMBA PRASAD MAHESHWARI VS. JUGAL KISHORE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (W. P. Nos. 333, 334 and 615 of 1951): These applications raise questions of considerable importance about the validity of the permit system under the Motor Vehicles Act and of some of the provisions of that Act.

(2.) THE facts in W. P. No. 333 of 1951 are these: In the Tenkasi Utbumalai route in the district of Tirunelveli respondent 2 was running one stage carriage. On 25 -7 -1950 applications were invited for a second stage carriage service over the route. Among the applicants were the petitioner and respondent 2. On 25 -8 -1950 the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to respondent 2. On appeal the Central Road Traffic Board set aside this order on 5 -11 -1950 and granted the permit to the petitioner. The respondent moved the Government under Section 64A of the Act and after various proceedings which it is unnecessary now to detail the Government passed an order on 5 -7 -1951 setting aside the order of the Central Road Traffic Board and restored that of the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioner now seeks to set aside this order as unconstitutional.

(3.) IN W. P. No. 615 of 1951 the material facts are these: In 1950 it was decided to open a new bus route between Kodavasal and Saliamangalam in the Tarijore district. The petitioner first got permits to run two stage carriages on this route. Later on applications were invited for two more permits. There were eight applicants including the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. On 2 -6 -1951 the Regional Transport Authority granted these two permits to the petitioner. On appeal the Central Road Traffic Board passed an order on 10 -8 -1951 setting aside the grant of the two permits to the petitioner and dividing it between respondents 4 and 5. A revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 64A was dismissed on 4 -10 -1951, the order of the Government being in these terms: "Government sees no reason to interfere". It is this order that is questioned in W. P. No. 615 of 1951.

Click here to view full judgment.

C.S.S. MOTOR SERVICE, TENKASI AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANR.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address