Srinivasmurty and D. Goburdhun, for Nazeeria Motor Service, Motor, and Andhra Pradesh Motor Union Interveners .
Ranadeb Chaudhuri, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for M. A.Tulloch and Co. Intervener .
Adhikari, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, B. Sen, B. K. B. Naidu, and I. N. Shroff, for the State of Madhya Pradesh Intervener .
Similarly, the road from Ajmer to Kishangarh was partly in the former State of Ajmer and partly in the State of Rajasthan, approximately two thirds of the road lying in Ajmer and one third in Rajasthan.
The first appellant did number file any appeal.
Then the High Court companysidered the validity of the relevant provisions of the Act from the stand point of trade, companymerce and came to the companyclusion that the regulation of trade, companymerce and intercourse within the territory of India, both inter State and intra State.
Appeals from the final judament and order dated August 9, 1957, of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in Civil Writ Petitions Nos.
respondents.
April 9.
The judgment of S. K. Das, J. L. Kapur and A. K. Sarkar, JJ.,
C. Chatterjee, S. C. Mazumdar and R. H. Dhebar, for the Attorney General for India Intervener .
The second and the third appellant also had some transport vehicles which plied on the Nasirabad Deoli route or from Kishangarh to Sarwar, a town situated on the Nasirabad Deoli road in the State of Rajasthan.
S. Pathak, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellants.
On the passing of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 Rajasthan Act XI of 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act , and the promulgation of the rules made thereunder, the second respondent demanded of the appellants payment of the tax due on their motor Vehicles for the period beginning on April 1, 195 1, and ending on March 3 1, 1954.
was delivered by S. K. Das, J. The judgment of M. Hidayatullah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J. R. Mudholkar, JJ.,
A numberice was also issued to the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India.
42 to 44 of 1959.
M. Seervai, Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra and Naunit Lal, for the State of Assam Intervener .
Sen, S. C. Bose and P. K. Bose, for the State of West Bengal Intervener .
was number incompatible with its freedom and in the matter of such regulation of trade, companymerce and intercourse a distinction must be drawn between restrictions which are direct and immediate and restrictions which are indirect and companysequential.
The following judgments were delivered.
K. T. Chari, Advocate General for the State of Madras, Ganapathy Iyer, T. M. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the State of Madras Intervener N. Sikri, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, N. Bindra, T. M. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the State of Punjab Intervener .
These appeals were however, dismissed by an order of the Transport Commissioner dated October 21, 1953.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Thereafter the three appellants filed three separate writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court in which their main companytention was that the relevant provisions of the Act imposing a tax on their motor vehicles were unconstitutional and void as they companytravened the freedom of trade, companymerce and intercourse through out the territory of India declared by Art.301 of the Constitution and therefore the demand and attempted companylection of such tax were illegal and should be prohibited.
Advorate General for the State of Maharashtra, T. M. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the State of Maharashtra Intervener .
2 the Rajasthan Roadways Ltd., Ajmer in Civil Appeal No.
3 the Collector of Jaipur.
Accordingly, they referred the question whether ss.
The first appellant was called upon to pay Rs.
22,260, the second appellant Rs.
10,260 under r. 23 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules.
These appeals were originally heard by a Bench of five Judges and on April 4, 1961, that Bench recorded an order to the effect that having regard to the importance of the companystitutional issues involved and the views expressed in the decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. The State of Assam 1 the appeals should be heard by a larger Bench.
was delivered by M. Hidayatullah, J. K. DAS, J. These are three companysolidated appeals which arise from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court dated August, 9, 1957.
S. C. R. 809.
The road from Nasirabad to Deoli was mainly in the former State of Ajmer but for some distance it passed through certain narrow strips of territory of the State of Rajasthan.
Lal Narain Sinha, Lakshman, Saran, Singh, D. P. Singh, R. K. Garg, M. K. Ramamurthi and S. C. Aggarwal, for the State of Bihar Intervener .
Bhimsankaram, T. M. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the State of Andhra Pradesh Intervener .
The prayers which the appellants made in their respective writ petitions were mainly there 1 that it be declared that the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1951 and the Rules made thereunder are invalid and number in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and companysequently null and void and inoperative, and 2 that a writ of prohibition or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents number to realise any tax from the appellants under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act of 1951 be issued.
L. Hathi and P. D. Menon, for the State of Gujarat Intervener .
M. Seervai.
132 of the Consti tution certifying that the cases involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of Art.
As the companystitutional issues involved affect the state of the Union, numberices were issued to the Advocates General companycerned.
42 of 1959.
Firstly, they companysidered the validity of the Act from the stand point of Act, 19 St 1 of the Constitution which guarantees, to all citizens of India the right to move freely throughout the territory of India this the Full Bench dealt with under the heading of freedom of intercourse from the stand point of the individual citizen and came to the companyclusion that restrictions which the Act imposed on the individual citizen were reasonable restrictions having regard to the necessity of raising funds for the maintenance of roads and the making of new roads in the State of Rajasthan.
They dealt with and disposed of certain other objection to the validity of the Act, with which we are numberlonger companycerned but as to the companytravention of Art.
They have been preferred to this Court on the strength of a certificate granted by the said High Court under Art.
The appeals were then placed before the learned Chief Justice for necessary orders, and on his orders have number companye to this Bench of seven Judges for disposal.
When the appellants failed to pay the tax demanded from them, the second respondent issued certificates under s. 13 of the Act to the, third respondent for the recovery of the tax due as arrears of land revenue.
132 of the Constitution which certificate the High Court granted by its order dated October 16, 1957.
44 of 1959.
The third appellant is a partnership firm named Framji Motor Transport registered under the India Partnership Act.
4 and 11 of the Act infringed the right of freedom of trade, companymerce or intercourse granted under Art.
301 of the Constitution.
The cases then went back to the Division Bench with the answer given by the Full Bench and the writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated August 9, 1957.
The three writ petition were heard together by a Division Bench companysisting of Bapna and Bhandari, JJ.
Those applications were allowed by us.
The three appellants then moved the High Court for a certificate under Art.
6,540 and the third appellant Rs.
301 and other companynected articles relating to trade, companymerce and intercourse within the territory of India, companytained in Part XIII of the Constitution.
43 of 1959, and 3 Framji C. Framji and others in Civil Appeal No.
The first two Appellants are private, limited liability companypanies registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 and having their registered offices at Ajmer.
The States of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar Gujrat, Madras, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal intervened and were represented before us either through their respective Advocates General or other Counsel M s. M. A. Tulloch Co., Andhra Pradesh Motor Congress and Nazeeria Motor Service, Nellore, applied for intervention on the ground that they would be affected in a pending litigation by the decision of this Court on the companystitutional issues involved.
301 of the Constitution, they felt that in view of the companyplexity of the points involved and the apparent companyflict between certain decisions of other High Courts, the question should be referred to a Full Bench.
It may be here stated that neither the Division Bench number the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had the advantage of the decision of this Court in Atiabari Tea Co., case 1 , which decision came much later in point of time.
The respondents are 1 the State of Rajasthan, 2 the Regional Transport Officer who is ex officio Motor Vehicles Taxation Officer, Jaipur, and 1 1961 1.
The two stations in Ajmer were Nasirabad and Deoli.
Ltd., Ajmer in Civil Appeal No.
The Full Bench dealt with the question from two different stand points.
Dinbandhu Sahu, Advocate General for the State of Orissa, B. P. Sinha, T. M. Sen and P. D. Menon, for the State of Orissa Intervener .
