R SRIHARI NAIDU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Twenty-one writ petitions against the decision in which the present appeals arise were filed by the Madas State based bus operators for the issue of a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus from enforcing the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Andhra Pradesh Act V of 1963) (hereinafter called " The Andhra Pradesh Act.") and Notification G.O. Ms. No. 1103, Home, (Transport II) Department, dated 29th June, 1964 of the State Government, on grounds inter alia (1) the said provisions and the notification being discriminatory offend Article 14 of the Constitution as one also violative of Article 304 (b) of the Constitution, and (2) that the State of Andhra Pradesh has no legal authority to cancel the exemption given under section 9 (1) (4) of the Andhra Pradesh Act retrospectively and levy tax as from the date.

(2.) Gopalakrishnan Nair, J., observed that in the large majority of the petitions, no plea of discrimination under Article 14 was at all taken and that though it was taken for the first time in the reply affidavits of the petitioners, he nonetheless considered the same, and held that the provisions of law and the notification are not discriminatory and do not offend Article 14, nor do they offend Article 301 or 304 (b) of the Constitution. He further held that the notification withdrawing the exemption retrospectively was bad and therefore the Government could not legally impose a tax on that basis.

(3.) Against this judgment, 8 operators, petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 1275, 1262, 1252, I242, 1399, 1445, 1637 and 1238 of 1964 have a filed writ appeals, while the Government has filed writ appeals in all the 21 writ petitions in so far as it went against the Government viz., declaring the retrcspective withdrawal of exemption as invalid. Mr. S.Srinivasamurthy on behalf of the appellants in W.A. Nos. 29, 30, and 121 of 1965, Smt. Amareswari in W.As. Nos. 31, 32, 33, Sri Kannabhiram in W.A. No. 92 cf 1965 and Shri K.Ramamurthy in W.A. No. 87 of 1965 contended that the writ petitioners had in fact raised in their petitions the question of discrimination under Article 14, but that the learned Judge, had by inadvertence stated that it had not been raised. In a few of the earlier writ petitions it was no doubt stated that there was discrimination but there was no elaboration as to how there was discrimination. But Mr. Srinivasamurthy contends that in his writ petitions at any rate, he had urged this point specially. Be that as it may inasmuch as the learned Judge had dealt with the matter and had held that the provisions of the law and the notification do not contravene Article 14, they cannot be precluded from contesting that finding in appeal.