J Y KONDALA RAO Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
LAWS(SC)-1960-9-38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 08,1960

J.Y.KONDALA RAO Appellant
VERSUS
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATATION Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NARENDRA KUMAR VARSHNEY VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1971-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH MOTOR VEHICLES DEALERS ASSOCIATION VS. GOVT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2002-11-7] [REFRRED TO]
SHAIK ALI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1964-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE LIMITED STOP/STAGE CARRIAGE VS. RAHUL TOM, KONDODICKAL HOUSE [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-231] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2016-12-115] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SWAROOP RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-1996-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH GANDIBAN TRANSPORTS KULDEEP SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1983-10-2] [RELIED ON]
ADARSH TRAVELS BUS SERVICE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1985-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
V HARISCHANDRA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1991-9-26] [REFERRED TO]
DAMINENI SANGAYYA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-1962-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SADAQ AH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1991-4-29] [REFERRED TO]
RAI BAHADUR LAL VS. GOVT OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1971-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJMULL NAGARMULL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1961-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
YELAMARTHI SARATH KUMAR VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-98] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. PAWAN KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
CONSUMER EDU. AND RESEARCH CENTRE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1983-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
CAPITAL MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., BHOPAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-1966-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
M P S R T C GWALIOR VS. R T A REWA [LAWS(MPH)-1989-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
SANWAL RAM VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATESRI GANGANAGAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1981-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH RAO VS. HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
B H ASWATHANARAYANA SINGH VS. STATE OF MYSORE [LAWS(SC)-1965-4-17] [RELIED ON]
YADUNATH SINGH VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR REGION II JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
KODALI KUMARA SWAMY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1991-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT BOMBAY BRANCH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1983-11-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA SAHU VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR O R T CO [LAWS(ORI)-1979-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
P MARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-377] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-8-50] [EXPLAINED .]
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation VS. Various Private Operators (Transport) [LAWS(KAR)-1993-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER NATH VS. STATE [LAWS(HPH)-1990-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM SOLANKI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
DAIB DAYAL TEWARI VS. CHAIRMAN SOUTH BIHAR REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(PAT)-1978-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
KHUDA DAD KHAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1979-10-73] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NAVEEN KAPLAS VS. HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2013-4-193] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-249] [REFERRED TO]
K LAKSHMINARASAMMA VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-1971-4-13] [REFERRED TO]
BALAVANTARAJ VS. SECRETARY HOME DEPT GOVT OF MADRAS [LAWS(MAD)-1961-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
B.O.DAVIS VS. B.T.MARTIN [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. ZAMIDARA TRANSPORT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SRI GANGANAGAR AND ANOTHER VS. THE STATE TRANSPORT, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
ELIAZ MATHAL VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY MALAPPURAM [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-83] [REFERRED TO]
AKADASI PADHAN VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-1962-12-4] [DISTINGUISHED]
MYSORE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-1974-5-2] [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]
KERALA STATE LIMITED VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-1963-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-884] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL GAUTHAM VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1964-10-42] [FOLLOWED]
JAMINDARA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. SUPDT GOVT CENTRAL PRESS JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-1986-10-77] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. MOHANLAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1966-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1991-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
NAND LAL JAISWAL VS. SECY GOVT OF U P ENERGY DEPTT CIVIL SECTT LKO [LAWS(ALL)-2012-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
GODFREY PHILIPS INDIA LIMITED VS. DIRECTOR MANDI PARISHAD KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI [LAWS(ALL)-2005-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PORT OF CALCUTTA VS. ASIT RANJAN MAJUMDER [LAWS(CAL)-1961-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA PLANTERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1982-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-1970-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
R L GOYAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
C S ROWJEE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1964-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
D PAPIAH VS. MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(SC)-1975-12-52] [RELIED ON]
VIJAYANT TRAVELS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2012-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATION OF PRIVATE DENTAL AND MEDICAL COLLEGES VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2009-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
Y VENKATARAMI REDDY VS. R T A GUNTUR [LAWS(APH)-1992-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
M GANGAPPA VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1973-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
R MAHESWARI VS. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(APH)-1975-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1965-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI MOTOR SERVICE VS. R T A GOA [LAWS(BOM)-1985-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [LAWS(KER)-2017-11-156] [REFERRED TO]
M K JAIN VS. STATE TRANSPORT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
RAMABAI VS. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-1965-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
ANNA TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., SALEM VS. R. SENGODAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1994-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-8-324] [REFERRED TO]
INDORE MALWA UNITED MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1973-5-7] [REFERRED]
HAZI ISMAIL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1981-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1960-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
T GOVINDARAJA MUDALIAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(SC)-1973-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
C P SIKH REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE KRISHAN GOPAL TRANSPORT CO KUNJILAL HANUMANLALA JAISWAL LOKPRIYA MOTOR SERVICE NEW DATAR TRANSPORT CO P LIMITED R G SONI SURAJMAL BHUMAL SHARMA PRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-1974-9-23] [RELIED ON]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, J. - (1.)These petitions are filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of the petitioners' fundamental right to carry on the business of motor transport in West Godavari District in the State of Andhra Pradesh by the issuance of writs of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions to quash the schemes of road transport services as finally approved by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on March 21, 1960, and for other incidental reliefs.
(2.)In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939), as amended by the Central Act, 100 of 1956, (hereinafter called the Act), Shri Guru Pershad, the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Transport Corporation) published seven proposals dated December 7, 1959, in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated December 17, 1959, propounding seven schemes for the nationalization of the road transport in respect of different parts of West Godavari District in that State. Under that notification objections from the public and affected parties were invited to be filed within 30 days of the publication thereof. More than 3000 objections were received by the Government against the said schemes. After considering the objections, the Government issued notices to the objectors or their representatives and the representatives of the Transport Corporation informing them of the time, place and the dates of hearing. On the notified dates, namely, March 10, 11 and 12, 1960, 200 objectors were present and most of them were represented by Advocates. The Transport Corporation was also represented by its Chief Executive Officer and its legal advisers. The Minister in charge of the portfolio of transport held an enquiry, considered the conflicting arguments advanced, gave definite findings on the points urged, rejected all the objections but one and approved the schemes with a slight modification. The seven schemes were directed to be put in force from different dates which were given in the order made by the Minister. The aggrieved operators who were not satisfied with the order of the Minister filed the present petitions for the said reliefs.
(3.)Shri A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, learned counsel for the petitioners, raised before us the following points:(1) The provisions of Ch. IVA of the Act are ultra vires the powers of Parliament because they are within the exclusive legislative field of the States. (2) The provisions of Ch. IVA of the Act infringe the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and are not saved by Cl. (6) of the said Article. (3) The provisions of Ch. IVA are also violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. (4) The order of the Government confirming the schemes is vitiated by the doctrine of bias and, therefore, void. (5) Though in fact seven schedule framed in effect they are component parts of one scheme and that device has been adopted to circumvent the judgment of this Court in Shrinivasa Reddy vs. State of Mysore, (1960) 2 SCR 130. (6) The schemes are void inasmuch as they were prepared and published by the Chief Executive Officer who was not one of the persons who could act on behalf of the Transport Corporation under S. 13 of the Road Transport Corporations Act. (7) The schemes as propounded by the Transport Corporation did not give the number of vehicles proposed to be operated in each route as it should have given under R. 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter called the Rules) and the modification made by the Minister directing the Transport Corporation to do so does not also comply with the requirements of the said rule. (8) In exercise of the power conferred under R. 5 of the Rules, the State Transport Undertaking conferred upon itself power to vary the frequency of the services and that rule and the note made pursuant thereto are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and, therefore, void. (9) The proposed schemes include three new routes and that is illegal as the said Transport Undertaking has no power to include any new routes in a scheme proposed by it. Though many other questions are raised in the petitions, they are not pressed before us.
;


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