{"id":141523,"date":"1961-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961"},"modified":"2015-06-29T22:29:06","modified_gmt":"2015-06-29T16:59:06","slug":"a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961","title":{"rendered":"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 AP 148<\/div>\n
Author: J Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: P C Reddy, J Reddy<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  Jaganmohan Reddy, J.  <\/p>\n
 (1) In view of the legal point involved in this case one of us  refered  the matter to a Bench.  The short  point  that  falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the primary authority granting the permit can suspend or  revoke a  permit for breach of the conditions in  a different  State beyond  its Jurisdiction where the permit has been  counter-signed by the counter-signing authority of that other State.  in other words, does the primary authority has  Jurisdiction beyond   its  territorial limits to suspend  or  cancel  the permit for the breach of any condition by the permit  holder within the Jurisdiction of the countersigning authority.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) In  this  case,  the petitioner  is  a  transport operator  plying  oneof his stage carriages APC 520  on  an inter-State route between Choudepalli and Gudiyattam.   The permit relating to the portion lying in the State of  Andhra Pradesh  was  granted by the Regional  Transport  Authority, Chittoor  and for the portion lying in the State of  Madras, it  was counter-signed by the Regional Transport  Authority, North Arcot.  on  a  report made by the Motor  vehicles  Taxation  Sub inspector  of vellore, North Arcot District to the Regional Transport  Authority,  Chittoor  that  the petitioner   was carrying 27 passengers on  7-2-1957 to Whom tickets were not issued and in excess of the capacity of the bus, chargememo Rc.  No.  3124\/A2\/57  dated  26-2-1957  was  issued  to  the petitoner  calling  upon him to submit  an  explanation  for violation of theconditions of the permit. The petitioner in his explanation denied the alleged offence, but the Regional Transport  Authority, Chittoor fount him guilty of the said breach  and  by proceedings dated  27-9-1957  suspended  the permit  for a period of six months under S. 60 of the Motor vehicles Act.\n<\/p>\n
 The  petitioner  appealed  to  the  state  Transport Authority  questioning  the Jurisdiction  of  the Regional Transport Authority, Chittoor to suspend the permit  granted by  the said  Authority for an  alleged  violation  of  the conditions  of  the counter permit granted by  the Regional Transport  Authority,  North Arcot. He further  denied  the offence. The State Transport Authority dismissed the appeal relying  on G. O. Ms. No. 1240 dated 3-8-1957 issued by  the Government  of Andhra pradesh under Which  the jurisdiction was  alleged to havebeen conferred on the Authority  Which granted the primary permit to take action under S. 60 of the Act in respect of the alleged violation of the conditions of the counter permit granted by a different authority.\n<\/p>\n
 A  revision  petition under S. 64-A of the Act  to  the Government  was preferred and stay of the operation  of  the order  pending disposal of the revision petition was  sought for on 14-12-1959, but sinceno orders were passed and as it was  apprehended  that  the secretary,  Regional  Transport Authority   would  take steps  to  enforce the order   of suspension, this writ filed.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) Shri G. Suryanarayana, on behalf of the petitioner, contends  that  S.  60  of  the motor  vehicles  Act  which authorises the Transport Authorith which granted the permit to cancel or suspend the permit for such period as it thinks fit  for breach of any of the conditions of the permit  and for other reasons specified there in would vest  Jurisdiction in the primary authority aloneto cancel, suspend or  revoke the permit for breaches of conditions outside the State.\n<\/p>\n
       He further contends that inasmuch as S. 63 of the Act states  that  the counter-signing would  tantamount  to  the grant of an independent permit with the conditions or permit imposed  by the primary authority as well as any  additional conditions  that  may  be imposed  by  the counter-signing authority.   According  to  him,  the Jurisdiction  of  the counter-signing  authority is not co-extensivewith that  of the primary  authority inasmuch as under  S.  63(1)  unless there is  a counter-signature, the bus cannot ply  in  that region  or  State over which the primary  authority  has  no control.\n<\/p>\n
       Secondly, under sun-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority when counter-signing the permit can attach to  the permit  any condition which it might have imposed if it  had granted  the permit, and may likewise vary  any  condition attached to the permit by the Authority by which the permit was  granted.   According to this provision, it  is  argued, that the conditions in the primary permit may bevaried,  as such  if the contention of the Government Pleader is  to  be accepted,  it would present an anomalous position, in  that, where the primary permit authorises a bus  owner  to  take standing   passengers  and  the counter-signing   authority prohibits  it,  the breach of this condition  in  the other State could not authorise the primary authority  to  cancel the permit, because there is no breach of the condition  at all.\n<\/p>\n
       Reference was madeto Ss. 44, 45, 57,60, 63(2) and  64  of  the Motor  vehicle Act  and  the several  rules  made thereunder  and to the cases of Lion Automobile Service Co.  v. State Transport Authority Madras, 1957-2 Mad LJ 300 at p.  302; M. A. Khair v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1960 All 227 and  Balurghat Kaliagunge Association v. S. T. A.,   as  justifying  the view  that  the violation  of conditions  of  a  temporary permit  does  not  entitle the authority  to suspend a pucca permit.  We may however  state that our brother Seshachalapati J. in his Judgement in W. P.  Nos. 1065 and 1066 of 1959 (AP) held that S. 60 of the Motor vehicles  Act would permit the Regional Transport  Authority to  cancel the permit for breach of conditions  even  outside the State.  But it is contended that this judgement is based on the point being conceded before him.  Be that as it  may, we do not find any Jurisdiction for the contentions advanced by thelearned advocatefor the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 (4) Where a route runs through several  areas,  that authority   with in  whose jurisdiction  the  permit-holder generally  resides  of has his principal place of  business would  have Jurisdiction to grant a permit.  Section  45  of the Motor  vehicles  Act  (4  of  1939)  says  that   every application  for  a  permit shall be made to  the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicleor vehicles; provides that if it is proposed to use the vehicleor vehicles in two or moreregions  lying within the same State, the application shall be made to  the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is  approximately equal to the Regional Transport  Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicleor vehicles:   provided further that if it is proposed  to  use the vehicle or  vehicles in two or more region  lying  in different  states,  the application shall be made to  the Regional  Transport  Authority of the region  in  which  the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.\n<\/p>\n
      From a reading of this section it is seen  that where the vehicle is  to be used in two or more regions in  the same State that authority is given jurisdiction in which majority of the route is to be operated , or if the route is  equally divided between two regions in the same state,that authority has  Jurisdiction wherethevehicleis kept.  When it  comes to  the Jurisdiction of theauthority where the applicant resides or has his principal placeof business.  Thereis  a clear indication in this section to vest the Jurisdiction in that  authority  which  has control over  the applicant  by reason of his being domiciled within that state.\n<\/p>\n
      The counter signatureby the countersigning  authority under  S.  42  is dependent upon the grant  of  the primary permit.    If  the permit  is  cancelled  by  the  primary authority,  the vehicle cannot possibly be plied  in  the region of the countersigning; but if the countersignature is cancelled  for any breach of the conditions imposed  by  the countersigning  authority,  the vehicle can be piled  up to that region.  In such circumstances, therefore, the anomaly to  which  the learned  advocate for  the petitioner  has adverted  does not in fact exist because, for the breach  of any  independent  conditions imposed by the countersigning authority, which condition are not the conditions imposed by the primary  authority,  it  is  only  the  countersigning authority that can cancel thecounter signature.  But if the conditions of the permit issued by the primary authority are merely  counter signed then the jurisdiction to  cancel  the permit  issued by the primary authority are merely  counter signed,   then  the jurisdiction  to  cancel  the  counter signature.   But if the conditions of the permit  issued  by the primary  authority that can cancel the permit  for  any breach  of  the conditions in the region  of  the counter signing authority would vest in the primary authority  also, because such suspension or cancellation would be the only effective method of control over such stage carriage permit holder.  The cancellation of the countersignature as we have already indicated, would be ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
      That  this  is the intention of the Legislature can  be gathered  by  a reference to some of the provisions  of  the Motor  vehicles Act.  For instance, S. 48(3) authorises  the imposition  of  the conditions specified in clauses  (i)  to (XXII) by the Regional Transport Authority which grants  the stage carriage permit.   While S.  59  (3)  specifies  the conditions that are attached to every permit, similarly  the conditions  to be attached to Contract Carriage permit  and private Carrier permit and Public Carrier permit have been specified in the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  50 prohibits the transfer of a permit from  one person  to  another,  except  with  the permission  of  the Transport   Authority   which  granted  the  permit.    The replacement  of thevehicleby another vehicle of  the same nature and capacity as that covered by the permit can  only be effected by the authority which granted the permit.\n<\/p>\n
      Again  under S. 60(1) only the authority which  granted the permit may cancel the permit or may suspend it for  such period  as  if thinks fit for any of the reasons  specified therein.   The mere fact that the Regional  authority  which countersignd the permit is given the power under S. 63(2) to attach to the permit any condition which might have imposed if  it  had granted the permit and may  likewise vary  any conditions  attached  to  the permit does  not  justify  the inference that the authority which granted the permit,  does not  justify  the interference that  the authority  which granted the permit has no jurisdiction to cancel or  suspend the permit.  True it is that the coutersigning authority  is also  vested  with  the power to   cancel  or  suspend  the countersignature but that does not takeaway the power  of the Primary Authority to cancel the permit.  The words  in sub-section (2) of S. 63, namely, “may attach to the permit any conditions which it might have imposed if it had granted thepermit” empower it to attach other conditions which  the Primary  Authority has not attached to it.\n<\/p>\n
      Further,  it  makes  a  clear  distinction  between  the authority  which granted the permit and the counter-signing authority  by  the words “if it had  granted  the permit”.  Where therfore the Section clearly empowers  the regional authority  which granted the permit to cancel or suspend  it for a breach of the conditions attached to the permit, there is no Justification, merely by an interference to limits  it only  to breaches committed within the region over which  it has  jurisdiction.  It our view, there is nothing  in  Rules 152,  156, 157, 169, 188, 189, 196 or 200(b) referred to  by the learned  advocate which  advances  the case of   the petitioner  inasmuch as these rules deal with the procedure to  be followed for countersignature, transfer  of  vehicles etc.  <\/p>\n
 (5) The case of 1957-2 Mad LJ 300 is only an  authority for the proposition that there is a right of appeal  against the  refusal  of  the Regional  Transport   Authority   to countersign  a permit under S. 63 and it is not  germane to the point at issue.  Further the case of  merely  states  that  the countersignature is  not  a  mere formality,   but   that   does   not   indicate  that   the countersignature takes away the jurisdiction of the Primary Authority  in respect of a breach of the conditions  of  the permit  committed by the permit holder.  The case of  B.  K.  Association  v.  S. T. A.,  appears  to  be concerned between two regional transport authorities in  the same State and there is nothing in  that  Judgement  which lends assistance to the contentions of the learned  advocate for  the petitioner.  We have sufficiently  indicated  the reasons  for  holding  that  the regional  authority  which granted the primary has jurisdiction to cancel a permit  for breach of the conditions of the permit committed in the area of the countersigning authority.\n<\/p>\n
 (6) The impugned order also would indicate  that it is as result of the judgement of the Madras High Court in that  it passed the order.  That order is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
       “In  Memo  No. 135164-Tr. 11\/51  Home dated  10-11-1951 instructions were issued by the composite Madras State that only  the authority which countersigned a permit  can  take action  under S. 60. M. v. Act in respect of a breach  of  a condition  committed  in  the region to  which  the counter signature extends and that the Regional Transport  Authority which  granted the orginal permit in respect of a  different region cannot take action under S. 60 M. v. Act for a breach of  condition committed in the region of the countersigning authority.\n<\/p>\n
 2. On a reference from the Transport Commissioner,  the question  whether action against the primary as well  as  the countersignature is possible for an offence of  unauthorised plying  and in all other cases where the authority in  whose jurisdiction  the condition is violated can take action  has been  examined  by  the Government  with  reference to  the instructions issued in para 1 above and the judgement of the Madras High Court in W. P. No. 280 of 1954 (Mad) in which it has been held that the power holder for breach of any of the conditions  of the permit whether the condition was  imposed by the Transport Authority that countersigned the permit  is limited   to   the suspension  or   cancellation   of   the countersignature also.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The Government  consider  that  the  instruction referred  to  in  para  1 above are in  conflict  with  the judgement  of the Madras High Court.  They therefore direct that  these insrructions  be treated  as  cancelled.   The Government  also direct that in all cases where a breach  of conditions  common  to  the primary permit as  well  as  the coutersignature is committed in the area of jurisdiction  of the countersigning authority only, the Transport  Authority which granted the primary permit should take action under S.  60 of the M. v. Act.\n<\/p>\n
      The Transport Commissioner is requested to issue suitable instructions  to  all Regional Transport  Officers  in  this regard.\n<\/p>\n
 (7) The word “also” in the second paragraph appears  to be a  mistake for the word “alone”.  The judgement  of  the Madras High Court in W. P. No. 280 of 1954 is not before us and we are not in a position to say what that case actually decided,  except that the Government on a consideration  of that judgement passed the present order.  We have given time to  the learned advocate for the petitioner to  produce the judgement, but he has not been able to do so.\n<\/p>\n
 (8) In the view we have taken, we have no hesitation in rejecting this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.  Advocate’s fee Rs. 100\/-\n<\/p>\n
 (9) Writ Petition dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961 Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 AP 148 Author: J Reddy Bench: P C Reddy, J Reddy JUDGMENT Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (1) In view of the legal point involved in this case one of us refered the matter to a Bench. The short […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141523","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, ... on 30 June, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, ... on 30 June, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-29T16:59:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-29T16:59:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\"},\"wordCount\":2550,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\",\"name\":\"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, ... on 30 June, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-29T16:59:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, ... on 30 June, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, ... on 30 June, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-29T16:59:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961","datePublished":"1961-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-29T16:59:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961"},"wordCount":2550,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961","name":"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, ... on 30 June, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-29T16:59:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-annamalai-vs-state-transport-authority-on-30-june-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Annamalai vs State Transport Authority, … on 30 June, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141523","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=141523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141523\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}