SAIN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SAIN Dass and ten other petitioners came to this Court under Article 226 of the constitution for having issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash the orders, instructions or rules, passed or framed by the respondents grouping the pick-up vans of the kind possessed by the petitioners in Karnal District with trucks as public carriers, for the purpose of levy and imposition of lump sum tax under the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952. When this case came up before the Motion Bench (S. B. Capoor and Dua, JJ> ) on March 26, 1965, it was at first dismissed in limine after hearing learned counsel for the writ petitioners. A little later on the same day, Civil Writ Transport Co. , Private Ltd. , Amritsar v. State of Punjab, was admitted by the same Bench. It was then pointed out to the Bench by Mr. Pitam Singh Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, that the objection contained in paragraph 16 of this writ petition was common with a similar objection contained in Civil Writ No. 780 of 1965 (Punj ). Thereupon the Motion Bench reviewed the earlier ex parte order and passed the following order:

(2.) MR. Pitam Singh Jain, learned counsel for the writ petitioners, concedes that in view of the decision of Mahajan J. in the case of Civil Writ No. 780 of 1965 (Punj) (Supra), following the judgment of a Division Bench in Civil Writ No. 907 of 1965 (Punj), Suraj Goods Carriers Private Ltd. Amritsar v. State of Punjab, the attack contained in paragraph 16 of the present writ petition does not survive. He, however, submits that he has two other points to raise in this case.

(3.) IT is firstly contended that the impugned orders are hit by Article 14 of the constitution, inasmuch as:-