Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the notification introducing small motor taxis at a lower tariff, and the grant of permits to them, violated the appellants' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Analysis: The tariff differentiation between small and large taxis was upheld as resting on a rational basis, having regard to differences in horse power, size and running expenses. The mere fact that the new arrangement might adversely affect the business of existing large taxi owners did not make the classification arbitrary or discriminatory. Likewise, Article 19(1)(g) protects the right to carry on a trade or business, but it does not secure a monopoly over the field or prevent lawful competition introduced by a bona fide regulatory decision. The power of the transport authority to regulate permits and tariff rates for different classes of vehicles was treated as validly exercised for the benefit of the public.
Conclusion: The notification did not infringe Articles 14 or 19(1)(g), and the challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A regulatory classification based on relevant differences, and adopted bona fide in the public interest, does not violate equality or the right to trade merely because it creates competition and affects existing ines.