Director,Sri V.Srinivasan v. Transport, New Delhi
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Nov 2004
- Bench
- B PRAKASH RAO
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226, 301, 304
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 103(2)
Judgment
Cause title
Director, Sri V.Srinivasan, ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Transport Roads & Buildings, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad rep.by it's Secretary. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by it's Chairman, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 4 The Government of India, rep.by it's Secretary to the Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS
relating the 2nd issued by the proceedings 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 a writ, direction or order preferably in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records R.No.3402/B1/95 in Item No.31 dated 22.11.1997 and quash the same declaring the said proceedings as ultravires of Arts.14.19(1)(g),21 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution and also being inconsistent and violative of G.O.Ms.778 Home (Transport-V) Department dt.3.6.1975 issued by the 1st respondent and also G.O.Ms.1125 Transport (Roads and Buildings-TR.V) Department dt.7.12.1976 and further declare sec.103(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Sec,104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consolidated by virtue of Act 59/1988 as ultravires of Art.14,19(1) (g), 21 and 301 to 304 of the Constitution of forbid the respondents from proceedings in any manner in pursuance of the said order or rejection passed by the 2nd respondent and pass respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.PRATAP SINGH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: The Govt. Pleader for Transport. Counsel for the Respondent No.3:Mr.K.Harinath, (SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C.) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Mr.A.Rajasekhara Reddy, S.C. for Central Government. The Court made the following :
WRIT PETITION NO. 3618 OF 1998
ORDER:-
Operative part
Heard both the learned counsel. Having regard to the fact that there is an affective alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 3—11—2004. Stv/- To 1 The Secretary, Ministry of Transport Roads & Buildings, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, Government of India, New Delhi.
TwoC.Cs to the Govt. Pleader ;for Transport, High Court Buildingts, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)
Two C.D. copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 226, 301, 304; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 103(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Nov 2004. The bench was B PRAKASH RAO.
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.