Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri.A.M.Ponnuranga Mudaliar ... vs The State Transport Appellate ...

Madras High Court|24 January, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3469 [G.T.Venkataswamy Reddy vs. State Transport Authority and others].
2.The learned Government Advocate also submitted that this matter is covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench cited above and therefore, the writ petition cannot be maintained.
3.However, it is seen that a Division Bench of this Court reported in (2003) 4 CTC 12 [R.Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another] has declared that the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) (Cancellation of Variation of Conditions of permit) Act, 1996 (Act 19 of 1996) as unconstitutional.
4.In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the earlier Act 41 of 1992 revived and the petitioners before the Division Bench were granted the following reliefs:
...
17.In view the above discussions, we declare the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) (Cancellation of Variation of Conditions of permit) Act, 1996 is unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. Consequently, there will be a direction to the Regional Transport Authority concerned to permit each of the petitioners to operate their stage carriage services on the respective varied routes as per the earlier orders passed pursuant to Act 41 of 1992. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed and the relief prayed for in each of the writ petition is granted. No costs. Consequently, all the connected W.P.M.Ps are closed.
5.In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner will also be entitled to the relief that was granted by the Division Bench in R.Srinivasan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep by Secretary, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another reported in (2003) 4 CTC 12 referred to above.
6.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to the writ petitioner to work out the remedy before the authorities in terms of Act 41 of 1992. No costs.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri.A.M.Ponnuranga Mudaliar ... vs The State Transport Appellate ...

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
24 January, 2017