SMT PALANIAMMAL AND A RAVINDRAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME (TR ) DEPARTMENT AND STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. The petitioner in the first writ petition is a stage carriage operator at Vellitiruppur and the petitioner in the second writ petition is another stage carriage operator at Salem. In these two writ petitions, the challenge is to the constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 248(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and to declare the same as unconstitutional.

(2.) In the first writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 02.7.1998. The second writ petition was admitted on 17.8.1998 and directed to be heard along with the first writ petition. On behalf of the respondent State, a common counter affidavit dated 30.8.2006 has been filed.

(3.) Before going into the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract the Rule in question, viz., Rule 248(1), which reads as follows: