Back
K. SUBBA RAO, N. H. BHAGWATI, K. N. WANCHOO, B. P. SINHA, S. R. DASS
Deep Chand, Brahmanlal Singh, Niranjan Singh, Hari Shanker Shyam Lal, Ram Prasad, Jain Transport, General Trading Co, Jaipal Singh, Virendra Pal Gupta, Vishambhar Dayal Gupta, Rejendrapal, Sia Ram, Brijpal Singh, Pandit Srinivas, Madho Ram, Mohi Uddin – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
Key Points: - The judgment holds that the Uttar Pradesh Act did not become wholly void upon the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956; it continued to be a valid and subsisting law supporting the pre-existing scheme (Art. 254(1) and General Clauses saving effects) (!) , (!) . - It examines the effect of the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955 on debates about compensation under Article 31(2) and applies the eclipse doctrine to post-Constitution laws with caveats; it recognizes potential applicability but resolves based on pre-Amendment terms (!) , (!) , (!) , (!) . - The court determines that the U.P. Act’s compensation provisions (Section 11 with Schedule I) provide adequate compensation for premature cancellation or curtailment of permits, satisfying Article 31(2) requirements, and that compensation includes potential referral to a District Judge for adequacy (!) , (!) . - The Amending Act occupies the same field for schemes initiated after its enactment, and it overrides contradictory aspects for those post-Amendment schemes; but schemes finalized under the U.P. Act prior to the Amending Act remain valid to support those actions (!) , (!) , (!) , (!) . - The appeals were dismissed with costs, upholding the state’s scheme and its compensation framework as constitutional under the cited Articles and doctrines (!) , (!) .
Judgment
S. R. DAS CJI. : We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by our learned Brother Subba Rao and we agree with the order proposed by him, namely, that all the above appeals should be dismissed with costs, although we, do not subscribe to all the reasons advanced by him.
2. The relevant facts and the several points raised by learned counsel for the appellants and the petitioners in support of the appeals have been fully set out in the judgment which our learned Brother will presently deliver and it is not necessary for us to set out the same here. Without committing ourselves to all the reasons adopted by our learned Brother, we agree with his following conclusions, namely, (1) that the Uttar Pradesh Transport Service (Development) Act 1955 (Act IX of 1955), hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act, did not, on the passing of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (100 of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, become wholly void under Art. 254 (1) of the Constitution but continued to be a valid & subsisting law supporting the scheme already framed under the U. P. Act; (2) that, even if the Central Act be construed as amounting, under Art. 254 (2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
