M. KALI MUDALIAR, PROP. M.K.M. BUS SERVICE Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a transport operator operating a vehicle from Madras to Pondicherry. A draft scheme of nationalisation was published in relation to this route on 6th January, 1971. Objections were called for and 28th April, 1975 was fixed as the date for hearing the objections. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 21st April, 1975 seeking a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from taking any further proceedings in pursuance of the said draft scheme, dated 6th January, 1971. The following contentions have been urged by the petitioner in this writ petition:

(2.) THE contentions Nos. 3 and 4 set out above have already been dealt with in W.P. No. 2963 of 1974 and they have been rejected exactly under similar circumstances. Hence, these contentions have to be rejected following the view taken in that case. Only the first two contentions remain to be considered.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 526 of 1975 batch dated 15th April, 1975 (V.G. Ramakrishnan, Sri Ramakrishna Bus Service, Wallajabad appellant etc.). In that case by Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Act XLVIII of 1974, Section 133 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was repealed. The said Madras amending Act received the Presidential assent on 4th November, 1974 and the amending Act came into force from 8th November, 1974. It was contended before the Bench that it is beyond the power of the State Legislature to enact Section 5 which repealed Section 133 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Dealing with this contention the Bench observed that though the topic of legislation, motor transport, is a concurrent subject covered by Entry 35 of List III of the VII Schedule to the Constitution, there being no power given by the Constitution to the State Legislature to directly repeal a Central enactment under that entry, the State Legislature cannot amend or repeal any Central Act, notwithstanding the existence of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution. According to the Bench.