A SUNDARAMMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are interconnected and so they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) All the petitioners are holders of stage carriage permits on different routes. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') came into force on 1-7-1989. By Section 217 (1) of the new Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act') was repealed. Sub-section (2) of Section 217 incorporates provisions as to the matters which are saved notwithstanding the repeal of the old Act. Clause (e) of Section 217 (2), which is relevant, reads :

(3.) Three of the contentions raised but not argued have been covered by the judgment rendered by me in the earlier batch of writ petitions Writ Petition No. 2763 of 1990 and batch-which was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1296 of 1990 and batch. They are : (1) The procedure under Section 101 of the new Act was not valid, (2) Chapter VI of the new Act is unconstitutional; and (3) Hearing by the Honourable Minister for Road Transport was vitiated due to bias. Shri Venkataramana, one of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, says that the contention regarding the validity of Sections 99 and 100 of the new Act raised by him in the writ petitions need not be decided and that the petitioners should be given liberty to advance that argument, in future, should an occasion arise. I cannot accept his request. In the earlier batch, the constitutionality of Chapter IV of the new Act has been upheld and as Sections 99 and 100 form part of the said Chapter, it is not open to the petitioners to once again raise this point.