HANS RAJ KEHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

HANS RAJ KEHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

There is no infirmity in the impugned notification or section 43A as amended: the State Government was empowered to issue the notification in public interest, and the notification recites the requisite public interest. The omission of an upper limit on permits facilitates wider public convenience and does not violate Article 14 or 19. The enabling provision allows for competition and does not confer monopoly rights to existing permit holders.

Parties
Appellants: Hans Raj Kehar & Ors.; Respondents: The State of U.P. and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 December 1974
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment and Order Dated May 17/3rd August, 1972 in C.w. Petn. No. 2438 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Validity of Statutory Amendments, Regulation of Stage Carriage Permits, Freedom of Profession and Trade, Reasonableness of Restrictions Under Article 19, Discrimination Under Article 14
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Transport Law Validity of Statutory Amendments Regulation of Stage Carriage Permits Freedom of Profession and Trade Reasonableness of Restrictions Under Article 19 Discrimination Under Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hans Raj Kehar & Ors.

Appellants

The State of U.P. and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment and Order Dated May 17/3rd August, 1972 in C.w. Petn. No. 2438 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 43A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended by U.P. Act No. 25 of 1972 and the notification dated March 30, 1972 are valid.
  2. 2 Whether the amended provisions and notification violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no infirmity in the impugned notification or section 43A as amended: the State Government was empowered to issue the notification in public interest, and the notification recites the requisite public interest. The omission of an upper limit on permits facilitates wider public convenience and does not violate Article 14 or 19. The enabling provision allows for competition and does not confer monopoly rights to existing permit holders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.