Hyderabad v. R&B(Tr-ii)Dept
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 226
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Judgment
Cause title
1 Mahendrapal singh S/o Surender singh Hyderabad 2 Smt. Bhagwat Kour W/o. Surender singh Hyderabad 3 Smt. Manpreet kour W/o. Mahendrapal singh Hyderabad 4 V.Gopal S/o. Bakkaiah Hyderabad AND ..... PETITIONER(S)
1 The Govt of A.P. Rep by its Principal secretary transport R&B(Tr-ii)Dept Secretariat. Hyderabad 2 The Secretary , Regional Transport Authority, Central Zone Hyderabad 3 The Secretary , Regional Transport Authority, East Zone Hyderabad 4 The Transport Commissioner of A.P Gruhakalpa Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the G.O.Ms.No. 54 Transport R.B(Tr-ii) Dept.dt. 31.3.95 in so far as it relates to the charging Sec.194(1) in the schedule to the G.O. empowering the officials to collect the compounding fee from the petitioners as illegal arbitrary and discriminatory and is therefore violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India and to pass such further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem it fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.H.RAVI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT The Court made the following :
ORDER:
Operative part
G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 31-3-1995 issued by the 1st respondent empowering the respondents 2 and 3 to collect compounding fee under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is challenged in this writ petition. When the matter came up today for hearing, none appears for the petitioners. However, it is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Transport that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.69 dated 16-5-2001 issued by the Government, no cause of action survives in the present writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 14-09-2004 To
Principal Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Transport, R&B(Tr-ii)Dept Secretariat. Hyderabad 2 The Secretary , Regional Transport Authority, Central Zone Hyderabad 3 The Secretary , Regional Transport Authority, East Zone Hyderabad 4 The Transport Commissioner of A.P Gruhakalpa Hyderabad
Two C.Cs. to G.P. for Transport
Two C.D. copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 226; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Sep 2004. The bench was N V RAMANA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.