SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1970 Supreme(SC) 517

M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, I. D. DUA
A. Sanjeevi Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State of Madras – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant Nos. 397, 398, 400 to 402, 422, 423, 441 and 451 of 1969 :- K.K. Venugopal, K.R. Nambiar and A.S. Nambiar, Advocates.
For the Appellant Nos. 404 to 417, 1179, 1180 and 1407 of 1969 :- M.C. Chagla, Senior Advocate, V. Subramanian, V.T. Gopalan, Radharani, C.S. Prakasa Rao and K. Jayaram, Advocates.
For the Appellant No. 1176 of 1969 :- M.K. Rammurthi, Senior Advocate, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, Advocates.
For the Appellant Nos. 424 to 428, 1158 to 1161 and 1207 of 1969 :- R. V.S. Mani, Advocate.
For the Appellant Nos. 429, 431 to 438, 440, 441, 1178 and 1181 of 1969 :- A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate, C.S. Prakasa Rao and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates.
For the Appellant No. 430 of 1969 :- C.S. Prakasa Rao, A.R. Ramnathan and R. Gopalkrishnan, Advocates.
For the Appellant No. 439 of 1969 :- R. Gopalkrishnan and Sudhir Khanna, Advocates.
For the Appellant No. 1204 of 1969 :- C.S. Prakasa Rao, Venugopal and R. Gopalkrishnan, Advocates.
For the Appellant No. 397 of 1969 :- Niren De Attorney-General-for-India A.V. Rangam, Advocate.
For the Appellant No. 400 of 1969 :- S.V. Gupta, Senior Advocate A.V. Rangam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- A.V. Rangam, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

Hegde, J. - These 51 appellants are private stage carriage operators in the State of Tamil Nadu. They have been operating in various routes in that State. Some of those routes are proposed to be nationalised. A draft scheme of nationalisation has been prepared and published under Section 68 (C) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1939) (to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The validity of the draft scheme was challenged by the appellants before the High Court of Madras under Article 226 of the Constitution. Incidentally the validity of some of the provisions of the amending Act XVIII of 1968 (Madras Act) also came to be challenged in those petitions. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Anantanarayanan, C. J. and Natesan, J., have dismissed those petitions. As against the decision of the High Court these appeals have been brought on the strength of the certificates issued by the High Court.

2. In these appeals we are primarily concerned with the validity of the draft scheme under challenge. The ground on which it is challenged is that the opinion requisite under Section 68 (C) of the Act was not formed by the State Government but by the

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
          whatsapp-icon Back to top