P. VENKAIAH versus G. KRISHNA RAO & OTHERS.

P. VENKAIAH versus G. KRISHNA RAO & OTHERS.

The proviso to Rule 212(iv)(a) is not hit by Article 19; it is a reasonable rule for merit evaluation and avoids unnecessary preference. 'New entrant' means an applicant not holding a stage carriage permit at the time applications are considered, regardless of previous permits.

Parties
Appellant: P. Venkaiah; Respondent: G. Krishna Rao; Respondent: Nagendrudu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 August 1981
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stage Carriage Permits, Preference Criteria, Rulemaking Power, Reasonableness of Restrictions
Motor Vehicles Constitutional Law Stage Carriage Permits Preference Criteria Rulemaking Power Reasonableness of Restrictions

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P. Venkaiah

Appellant

G. Krishna Rao

Respondent

Nagendrudu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proviso to Rule 212(iv)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 is hit by Article 19 of the Constitution as an unreasonable restriction
  2. 2 Interpretation and scope of 'new entrant' under Rule 212(ii)(a) for stage carriage permits

Ratio Decidendi

The proviso to Rule 212(iv)(a) is not hit by Article 19; it is a reasonable rule for merit evaluation and avoids unnecessary preference. 'New entrant' means an applicant not holding a stage carriage permit at the time applications are considered, regardless of previous permits.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permits granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 5 upheld
  • No order as to costs