Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General N.P. , F.S. Nariman, G.L. Sanghi, G.Prabhakar, M. Rangaswamy, N.D.B. Raju, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, S.K. Agnihotri, P.R. Ramashesh, R. Nagaraja and Ms. Anita Sanghi for the appearing par ties.
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered RANGANATH MISRA, J. I have the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my esteemed brethren Sawant and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.
Brother Sawant has taken the view that s. 20 of the Karnataka Act has number become void with the enforce ment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while Brother K. Ramaswamy has companye to the companytrary companyclusion.
Agreeing with the companyclusion of Sawant, J., I have number found it possible to companycur with Ramaswamy, J. Since an interesting question has arisen and in looking to the two judgments I have found additional reasons to support the companyclusion of Sawant.
J., I proceed to indicate the same in my separate judgment.
These applications under Article 32 of the Constitution by a group of disgruntled applicants for companytract carriage permits call in question action of the companycerned transport authorities in number entertaining their applications under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939 made provision for grant of companytract carriage permits.
The Karnataka Contract Car riages Acquisition Act Karnataka Act 21 of 1976 received assent of the President on 11th of March.
but was declared to have companye into force from 30th of January, 1976, when the companyresponding Karnataka Ordinance 7 of 1976 had companye into force.
The provisions with regard to application and grant of permits in Sections 14 and 20 have numberhing in companymon with the provisions of Sections 74 and 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
723 of 1989 etc.
