https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155981 The article explains that a State transport law creating an exclusive State monopoly in bus services was treated as an unconstitutional total exclusion of private operators from a lawful trade. It states that a restriction under Article 19(6) must ordinarily limit, not extinguish, the business right under Article 19(1)(g), and that no material was shown to justify the monopoly as reasonably necessary in the public interest. It also notes that the business interest in running buses for gain was treated as a protected commercial interest, so uncompensated deprivation engaged Article 31(2). The discrimination challenge under Article 14 failed because differentiation within a monopoly scheme was not inherently arbitrary. en-us Wed, 13 Oct 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155981 The article explains that a State transport law creating an exclusive State monopoly in bus services was treated as an unconstitutional total exclusion of private operators from a lawful trade. It states that a restriction under Article 19(6) must ordinarily limit, not extinguish, the business right under Article 19(1)(g), and that no material was shown to justify the monopoly as reasonably necessary in the public interest. It also notes that the business interest in running buses for gain was treated as a protected commercial interest, so uncompensated deprivation engaged Article 31(2). The discrimination challenge under Article 14 failed because differentiation within a monopoly scheme was not inherently arbitrary. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Oct 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155981