R. SENTHIL BABU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND A,NR.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 631 · Decided: 16-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-( 
(2008] 17 S.C.R. 631 
R. SENTHIL BABU 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND A,NR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7304 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 16, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 226 and 14 - Writ 
petition raising issues of public importance - Requirement of c 
pleadings with sufficient data and details - Contract carriage 
vis-a-vis stage carriage -
Taxation -
Principle of 
proportionality - Amendment Act providing for increased 
rates of tax in respect of contract carriage - Order of High 
Court on the writ petition filed by appellants challenging 
constitutional validity of the said Act - Appeals against - Held: 
D 
Petition before High Court was very sketchy - Pleadings at 
the initial stage was thus insufficient- No infirmity in judgment 
of High Court- However, since questions of public importance 
were involved, appellants permitted to withdraw the appeals 
with liberty to file fresh writ petition in High Court with proper E 
details and data -
Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation 
(Amendment) Act, 1998. 
The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation 
(Amendment) Act, 1998 provided for increased rates of 
tax in respect of contract carriage. Appellants filed writ 
F 
petition challenging constitutional validity of the 1948 Act 
on the ground that it placed uneven burden on owners 
of contract carriage vis-a-vis stage carriage. The order 
passed by the High Court on the petition was challenged 
in the present appeals. 
G 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Generally, in a matter of this nature, the 
quantifiable data forms the basis of the challenge. At the 
631 
H 
632 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A initial stage when the petition is filed in such cases there 
has to be a precise formulation of the ground of challenge 
from the side of the appellants based on some statistical 
data as to disproportionality of the rate of tax. It is only 
thereafter that the burden will shift on to the State to 
8 submit quantifiable and measurable data. In the present 
case, the initial burden on the appellants itself has not 
been discharged in the sense that the petitions filed 
before the High Court were very sketchy. A challenge of 
this nature requires the appellants to furnish greater 
details before the State could be called upon to submit 
C quantifiable and measurable data justifying the 
impugned rate. Ultimately, it is the State which has to 
meet the allegations made in the writ petitions and if 
those allegations made in the writ petitions are vague, 
inaccurate or insufficient then !t would not be possible 
D for the State to submit its reply/data to the Court. The 
repeated increase in the rate of tax, particularly the 
incidence of which is more on the contract carriage vis.-
a-vis stage carriage raises question of public importance. 
At the same time the State can certainly. rely upon the 
E data available to show cross subsidization, if it so exists 
in a given case, by which stage carriage gets subsidized 
in public interest. Keeping in mind the gamut of the 
dispute involved, this Court cannot interfere with the 
impugned judgment of the High Court, particularly whe_n 
F the pleadings at the initial stage were insufficient. [Paras 
4, 5, 7 and 8) [634-8-C-D-E, G] 
1.2. The appellants sought permission of this Cour:t 
to withdraw the civil appeals/special leave petitions with 
liberty to file proper writ petition in the High Court giving 
G requisite details and available data. Normally, such 
permission cannot be granted. However, questions· of 
public importance ari~es in these matters, particularly in· 
the context of the principles of proportionality under Article . · 
14 of the Constitution and the later development of law, as 
indicated by this Court in the case of Jindal Stainless 
H. Steel*. In the circumstances, the appellants are permitted 
-j· 
·•
t-
R. SENTHIL BABU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 633 
to withdraw the appeals with liberty to file proper writ 
A 
petition, if so advised. There is no infirmity in the impugned 
judgment of the High Court based on the petition originally 
filed before it. [Paras 9 and 10] [635-A-D] 
*Jindal Stainless Ltd. (2) and Another vs. State of 
Haryana and Others (2006) 7 SCC 241 and Tamil Nadu 
B 
Omni Bus Owners Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. 
i.e. C.A.No.1177 of 2006 disposed of by Supreme Court 
on 28.11.2007, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2006) 7 SCC 241 
relied on 
Para 6 
C 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.