T. GOVINDARAJA MUDALIAR ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 09-01-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. GROVER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

222 
T. GOVINDARAJA MUDALIAR ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS 
January 9, 1973 
[A. N. GROVER AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(f)-Motor Vehicle Act 
1939, 
Maaras Amendment Act 18 of 1939-Chapter IVA-Sections 47(1)-
•,cc), 58(2)(a), Section 68(cc)-Rules of -Business-Rule 
23(A)-
Scheme for nationalisation of 
State 
Carriage 
whethtv 
violative 
of 
Article 19 (1) (f). 
Constructive res judicata-The same scheme unsuccesfully challenged 
for violation of Art. 19 (l) (g) earlier. 
The Scheme for nationalisation of the Stage Carriage issued 
u:nder 
Chapter IV A of the Act was challenged before Supreme Court on the 
ground of the alleged violation of Art.19(1)(g) of the 
Constitution. 
The Supreme Court by its judgement in A. Samjeevi Naidu etc. 
, •. 
State of Madras and another 
(1970 3 S.C.R. 505) 
turned down the 
challenge. 
After the 
decision of the 
Supreme Court in 
Rustom 
Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India 
(1970 3 S.C.R. 530), 
the said 
>Cherne was again challenged as violative 
of Art. 19(1 )(f) 
of 
the 
Constitution. The Scheme was challenged inter ulia, on 
the 
ground, 
that the permit issued under the Act constitutes 
property, 
and 
the 
right to apply for permit as wen as renewal of a permit is a right to 
holu property and that the law 
authorising the nationalisation of Stage 
Carriage \Vas violative of Art. 19( 1) (f) as the restriction was not in 
the public interest. 
The writ petitions were dismissed by the Madras 
High Court. 
In rejecting the appeals. 
HELD : (i) That there is no merit in the argument of the appellants 
that before the 
decision of the Supreme Court in 
Rustom Cavasjee 
Cooper's Case, it was not possible for the 
appellants to challenge the 
validity of Chapter IV A of the Act, as. the earlier decisions were based 
o;rt a theory that Art. 19(1) (I) could not be invoked wnen 
a 
case 
fell within · Art. 31 
of the 
Constitution K. K. Kochuni and Others 
v. State of Madras (1963) 3 S.C.R. 887), had earlier laid down that 
clause 1 of Art. 31 could no longer be construed as to 
exclude 
the 
operation of Art. 19 and a law regarding the deprivation of property 
was, therefore, too late in the 
day to punue that line of argument. 
[229 DJ 
(ii) By virtue of the Scheme, the existing permits of any operator 
will not be canct:lled. None of the properties or assets of the appellants 
is going to be acquifed. 
It has already been held that nd operator 
can claim renewal of permit as a matter of 
right. 
TJ;ie 
effect 
of 
nationalisation on the properties or the business of the operator is not 
such Ill cannot be regarded to' a 
reasonable 
restriction 
in the 
interest of general public within the meaning of Art. 19(5). The tests 
regarding the validity of Act falling under Clause S or Clause 6 of 
Article 19 are same, Akadshi Padhan v. State of Orissa 
(1963) Supp. 
2 S.C.R. 691) followed. [232 HJ 
(iii) Held, the hearing of objections to the Scheme under s. 68 (b) of 
the Act by the Home Secretary does not violate rules of natural justice 
ndr can any bias be imputed simply because Home Secretary is 
also 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
D 
E 
H 
GOVJNDARAJA V. TAMIL NADU 
223 
the memb,er of a committee which made the report :regarding 
the 
Schemes of. inationalisation. 
Dosa 
Satyanarayana 
Murthy 
v. 
Tht 
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1961 1 
S. C.R. 
642) followed. [233 0] 
(iv) Held further, that the nationalisation Scheme, even if introduc-
ed piece-meal on particular routes, is not illegal unless it is established 
that there is discrimination against some operators. 
Dosa Satyanarayana Murthy's case followed._ 
The mere fact that the Scheme was approved by the Home Secretary 
without any modification does not mean that the discretion, in discharge 
of the quasi-judicial function under s. 68(b) was not properly exercised 
or. that there was no scope for the proper exercise of the discertion due to 
the mandatory language contained in Oovt. Orders. [235 E] 
Saghir Ahmed v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1955] 1. S.C.R. 707, Ram 
Chandra Palai and Others v. The State of Orissa & Ors. [1956] S.C.R. 
29, Bhikaji Narain Dlzakras and Others v. The Stc.te of Madh}•a Pradesh 
and Others, 
[1955] 
2 S.C.R. 
589, 
Gullapa//i Nageiwara Ra" and 
Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Trc.nsport Corporation 
and 
another .. 
[1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 319, Smt, Sitabati Debi and another v. State of 
West Bengal and another, [1967] 2 S.C.R. 
949

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