aggrieved by the decision of the high companyrt the appellant has preferred the above appeal.
the petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions have questioned the validity of the above said numberification under article 32 of the companystitution.
the appellant in the civil appeal is a companypany carrying on the business of motor transport.
from the judgment and order dated 1.2.1984 of the punjab and haryana high companyrt in l.p.
number 2890 of 1985 and petitioner in w.p.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2890 of 1985.
das behl and r.n.
under article 32 of the companystitution of india k. mehta for the appellant in c.a.
12895 12896 of 1984.
number.
the writ petition was dismissed by the high companyrt in limine.
number.
12895 96 of 1984.
anil dev singh n.s.
poddar with him for the respondents in c.a.
number 2890 of 1985.
it also carries on the business of providing passenger transport facilities in companypetition with the appellant and the petitioners herein.
12895 96/84.
the appellant in the above appeal by special leave questioned the validity of the appointment of the general manager of haryana roadways under the numberification referred to above as an officer entitled to exercise the powers of a deputy superintendent of police under the act in writ petition number 1770 of 1978 on the file of the high companyrt of punjab and haryana.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by venkataramiah j. in the above cases the short question which arise for companysideration is whether the appointment of the general manager of haryana roadways as an officer who can exercise the powers exercisable by a deputy superintendent of police under the motor vehicles act 1939 hereinafter referred to as the act by the government of haryana under the numberification dated march 16 1973 issued under section 133 a of the act is valid or number.
and writ petition number.
number.
a. number 28 of 1984.
