Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.43 seconds)
Himachal Transport Workers Union ... vs Secretary (Transport) To Himachal ... on 25 August, 1966 cites

Saghir Ahmad vs The State Of U. P. And Others.(With ... on 13 October, 1954

In fact, there was no question of the infringement of any common law right in the above case. The petitioners, in that case, who were plying motor vehicles on hire, had challenged the validity of the U. P. Road Transport Act which had given the State Transport Undertaking the exclusive right to operate Road Transport Services on the ground that the Act infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioners conferred by Article 19(1)(g) and other Articles of the Constitution. Their Lordships had struck down the Act, holding that it imposed an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g). Their Lordships did not hold that the petitioners had any common law right, apart from the right, under Article 19(1)(g), to ply vehicles for hire and that that common law right was infringed by the Act. The observations, referred to, were made in rejecting the argument of the learned Advocate-General that the only right which a member of the public can assert in respect of a highway is the right of passing and repassing and that a citizen has no right to carry on a trade or business, on a highway except under special sanction from the State. Their Lordships held that a citizen had a fundamental right, under Article 19(1)(g), to ply vehicles for hire on a highway, without any sanction from the State but subject to restrictions permissible under Clause (6) of Article 19.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 350 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1   2 3 Next