H C NARAYANAPPA D R KARIGOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
LAWS(SC)-1960-4-6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on April 28,1960

H.C.NARAYANAPPA,D.R.KARIGOWDA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MYSORE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

B.A.LINGA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2014-12-68] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. HIND STONE [LAWS(SC)-1981-2-19] [FOLLOWED]
CHANDRA BHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1960-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1968-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
LIBERTY MARINE SYNDICATE PRIVATE LTD. VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CUTTACK [LAWS(ORI)-2016-12-59] [REFERRED TO]
M K JAIN VS. STATE TRANSPORT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BAIRAGARH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY INDORE [LAWS(MPH)-1968-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
LUKA DEVASSIA VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2015-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-156] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-1988-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
COASTAL PAPERS LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1994-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYANT TRAVELS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
J Y KONDALA RAO VS. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(SC)-1960-9-38] [FOLLOWED]
R L GOYAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BHOPAL VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY REWA [LAWS(MPH)-1968-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA PLANTERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1982-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
SRI B. ATHAULLA KHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1991-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
KHAZAN SJNGH AMAR TRANSPORT ROADWAYS AND SHRI DULUH SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1973-12-13] [RELIED ON]
JAGANNATH VS. SATYA NARAIN [LAWS(RAJ)-1972-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMUNDI HOTEL P LTD VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-1997-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-884] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF KPT & 1 ANR VS. NEW KANDLA SALT & CHEMICAL PVT LTD & 1 ANR [LAWS(GJH)-2013-12-316] [REFERRED TO]
OM PAL SINGH VS. UNIONOF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-3-214] [REFERRED TO]
HARI RAM SHARMA VS. GOVERNMENT OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1972-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
SINDHI SAHITI MULTIPURPOSE TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1976-11-26] [RELIED ON]
AKADASI PADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1962-12-4] [DISTINGUISHED]
ANIL KUMAR SOOD VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
PREMCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-1964-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
PREMCHAND JAIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1965-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
Sindhi Sahiti Multipurpose Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Bhopal VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1976-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN RAYON ( A UNIT OF ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHER [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-215] [REFERRED]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LUCKNOW VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW AND ETHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1974-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CANNANORE [LAWS(KER)-1975-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
P M KURIEN VS. P S RAGHAVAN [LAWS(KER)-1968-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
SREE GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KAR)-2017-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL MANAGER U P GOVT ROADWAYS BAREILLY REGION VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1970-1-23] [REFERRED TO]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation VS. Various Private Operators (Transport) [LAWS(KAR)-1993-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
A ABDUL SATTAY VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1979-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. DIGIANA INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND 11 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-157] [REFERRED TO]
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONJAIPUR VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNALJAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1983-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
SECURITY ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-138] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(P&H)-1975-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA SAHU VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR O R T CO [LAWS(ORI)-1979-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. M L V CHANDRASHEKHARAMURTHY [LAWS(KAR)-1983-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION REGD VS. SECRETARY TRANSPORT TO HIMACHAL PRADESH GOVERNMENT AND [LAWS(HPH)-1966-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
KODALI KUMARA SWAMY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1991-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
YADUNATH SINGH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR REGION II JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB DRUGS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1988-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KRISHNA VERMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1992-3-76] [RELIED ON]
MUKESH RAO VS. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
RASID JAVED VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-45] [REFERRED TO]
SANWAL RAM VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATESRI GANGANAGAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1981-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. ASHRAFULLA KHAN [LAWS(SC)-2002-1-158] [REFERRED]
CONSUMER EDU. AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1983-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. STATE OF U P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT AND V N AGARWAL, SPECIAL SECRETARY (TRANSPORT)/HEARING AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2007-6-85] [REFERRED]
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE VS. P NARAYANA RAO [LAWS(KAR)-1993-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
NANAK CHAND SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1992-10-50] [DISTINGUISHED]
RAI BAHADUR LAL VS. GOVT OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1971-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
KATARI SATYANARAYANA RAO VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KRISHNA [LAWS(APH)-1961-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
V HARISCHANDRA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1991-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT TRANSPORT DEPT [LAWS(APH)-1999-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
ANWAR VS. FIRST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR [LAWS(SC)-1986-8-16] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SWAROOP RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-4-15] [REFERRED TO 2.]
ZAMINDARA MOTOR TRANSPORT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. R T A BIKANER [LAWS(RAJ)-1998-11-43] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ARCHITECT ATELIER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-378] [REFERRED TO]
COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1963-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE LIMITED STOP/STAGE CARRIAGE VS. RAHUL TOM, KONDODICKAL HOUSE [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-231] [REFERRED TO]
WILBIRTHFORTH MOMIN VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-2-45] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT NATH WAHAL VS. U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-1976-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR VARSHNEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1971-7-7] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioners pray for a writ quashing a scheme approved under S. 68D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by the Government of the State of Mysore and for a writ restraining the respondents, i. e., the State of Mysore, the General Manager, the Mysore Government Road Transport department and the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore from taking action pursuant to the scheme.
(2.)The petitioners are operators of Stage carriages on certain routes in the sector popularly known as "Anekal area" in the Bangalore District. On January 13, 1959, the General Manager, Mysore Government Road Transport department who will hereinafter be referred to as the 2nd respondent published a scheme in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for the exclusion of private operators on certain routes and reservation of those routes for the State transport undertaking in the Anekal area. The Chief Minister of the Mysore State gave the operators affected by the scheme an opportunity of making oral representations and on perusing the written objections and considering the oral representations, approved the scheme as framed by the 2nd respondent. On April 23, 1959 the scheme was published in the Mysore State Government Gazette. On June 23, 1959, renewal applications submitted by petitioners 1 to 3 for permits to ply Stage carriages on certain routes covered by the scheme were rejected by the Transport Authority and the 2nd respondent was given permanent permits operative as from June 24, 1959, for plying buses on those routes. In Writ Petition No. 463 of 1959 challenging the validity of the permanent permits granted to the 2nd respondent, the High Court of Mysore held that the issue of permits to the 2nd respondent before the expiry of six weeks from the date of the application was illegal. To petitioners 1 to 3 and certain other operators renewal permits operative till March 31, 1961, were thereafter issued by the third respondent. the 2nd respondent applied for fresh permits in pursuance of the scheme approved on April 15, 1959, for plying Stage carriages on routes specified in the scheme and notices thereof returnable on January 5, 1960, were served upon the operators likely to be affected thereby. On January 4, 1960 , the five petitioners applied to this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for quashing the scheme and for incidental reliefs.
(3.)The petitioners claim that they have a fundamental right to carry on the business of plying stage carriages and the scheme framed by the 2nd respondent and approved by the State of Mysore unlawfully deprives them of their fundamental right to carry on the business of plying stage carriages in the Anekal area. The diverse grounds on which the writ is claimed by the petitioners need not be set out, because, at the hearing of the petition, counsel for the petitioners has restricted his argument to the following four heads :
(1) that the Scheme violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution, because only fourteen out of a total of thirtyone routes on which stages carriages were plied for public transport in the Anekal area were covered by the scheme and that even from among the operators on the fourteen routes notified, two operators were left out, thereby making a flagrant discrimination between the operators even on those fourteen routes ;

(2) that by Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Parilament had merely attempted to regulate the procedure for entry by the States into the business of motor transport in the State, and in the absence of registration expressly undertaken by the State of Mysore in that behalf, that State was incompetent to enter into the arena of motor transport business to the exclusion of private operators;

(3) that the Chief Minister who heard the objctions to the seheme was biased against the petitioners and that in any event, the objections raised by the operators were not considered judicially; and

(4) that the Chief Minister did not give "genuine consideration" to the objections raised by the operators to the scheme in the light of the conditions prescribed by the Legislature.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.