Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [1959 Supp. (1) SCR 319] it was contended that the State by nationalisation of the Transport Services, exercised its power in Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and in effect and substance authorised in law to effect the transfer of the business of the citizens to the State or a Corporation owned or controlled by the State, without paying full equivalent of the compensation under Article 31(2). The acquisition was, therefore, contended to be invalid. Repelling the contention, the Constitution Bench of this Court had held that Section enabled the Government to frame a scheme and give effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area of a notified route and stop the private operators from entering on the notified route, from entertaining any application for renewal of any other permit and from cancelling any existing permit or modifying the terms of existing permit so as to render the permit ineffective from the specified date. The impugned provision was held to be a regulated power conferred on the Transport Authority in the interest of the public for efficient, economical and co- ordinate regulated service offered by the STU. The business of the private operators and the STU has nothing to do with one another. They are two independent businesses carried on under two different licenses. The contention that the scheme enabled the nominee of the State to do the business and, thereby, in effect and substance transfer the business on the existing permit holders to the STU was held to be not correct. The contention was held to be fallacious. It may be by process of law that the existing permit holders are precluded from doing their business and it also may be that the STU carriers on a similar business. By no stretch of imagination, in law it can be said that STU is doing business carried on by previous permit holders by or on behalf of the State. Accordingly, it was held that the State has no control and it is not an acquisition on behalf of the State. In Union of India vs. Sudhansu Mazumdar & Ors. [1971]) Supp. SCR 244], on September 10, 1958 an agreement was entered into between the Government of India and Pakistan called the "Indo-Pakistan agreement". Item 3 of the agreement related to transfer of group of villages lying within the territory of India, known as Berubari Union No. 12 and it was accordingly transferred to Pakistan. It was contended that it was an acquisition without compensation violating Article 31(1) and (2) of the Constitution. This Court by a Constitution Bench had held that in order to constitute acquisition or requisition, there must be transfer of ownership or of right to possession of any property to the State or Corporation owned or controlled by the State. It was held that the effect of the Constitution, by the Constitution (9th Amendment) Act, 1960 by no stretch of imagination could be regarded as transfer of Berubari Union No.12 to Pakistan as transfer of the ownership or of right to possession of any property of the respondents in the State under Article 31(2) of the Constitution. The Amendment Act, 1955 made it clear that mere deprivation of the property, unless its acquisition or requisition was within the meaning of clause (2A), shall not attract clause (2) and no application to pay compensation will arise thereunder. In Katra Education Society, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1966 SC 1307 at 1311] the contention was that Section 16F(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 violated their fundamental right under Article 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. It was contended that since the scheme of management did not provide for any compensation, it was ultra vires the Constitution. The Constitution Bench rejected the contention by holding that the educational authorities, after considering the representation of the management, had the power to make recommendation after selectmen. The power to appoint persons possessed of prescribed qualifications vests in the institution. The education authorities did not accept suitability of persons selected by the management on the specified grounds, and reasons therefor. It is only an exercise of the control envisaged by the amendment of Section 16D(3) of the Act with a view to prevent appointment of unqualified person. The power under Section 16D(4) entrusted to the authorised controller was merely of management. Management of institution in respect of which Authorised Controller had been appointed had to be conducted and carried out in accordance with the directions given by the Authorised Controlled. IT was held that the property did not vest in the State but continued to remain the property of the institution as Article 31(2A) saves such control and Section 31(2) has no application.