Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.24 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Messrs. Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Two Others on 11 January, 1954
No doubt restrictions can be placed on the right under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) but the restrictions should not be arbitrary or excessive in nature vide Laxmi Khandsari v. State of M. P., AIR 1981 SC 87 ; Kharak Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1963 SC 1295 ; Mohd. Haneef Qureshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 ; Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 224 and Harak Chand v. Union of India. AIR 1970 SC 1453.
Mithu, Etc., Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 7 April, 1983
18. In our opinion, Section 10 (3) is also discriminatory. There may be cases where a vehicle operates only for say 10 minutes within U.P. on a few kilometers without paying tax. and other cases where a vehicle operates for days or weeks on hundreds of kilometers within U.P. without paying tax. Surely these two categories are different, but in both these cases the same harsh penalty is payable, and there is no discretion in the matter. Thus Section 10 (3) treats unequal as equals, which is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The ratio of Mithu's case (supra), hence applies in the present case too, though no doubt Mithu's case related to a different statute.