{"id":60068,"date":"2001-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001"},"modified":"2017-08-23T17:13:37","modified_gmt":"2017-08-23T11:43:37","slug":"anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001","title":{"rendered":"Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.  <\/p>\n
1. Since  the  writ  petitions  are  filed  against the common order of the State
\nTransport Appellate Tribunal, Madras\/third respondent herein, they  are  being
\ndisposed of  by  the  following  Common Order.  Anna Transport Corporation has
\nfiled W.P.Nos.  13114 to 13117 of  93  questioning  the  order  of  the  third
\nrespondent in Appeal  No.  238 of 92 etc.  dated 8-6-93, in granting permit in
\nfavour of the first respondent.  Against the  very  same  order,  the  private
\noperators\/objectors before  the  third respondent herein filed W.P.Nos.  14651
\nto 14654 of 93.\n<\/p>\n
2.  For convenience, I shall refer the case of the Anna Transport  Corporation
\nin W.P.No.   13114  of  93.    The  petitioner-Corporation  is  a  State owned
\nTransport Undertaking within the meaning  of  Section  2(42)  of  the  Motor
\nVehicles  Act,  operating  a  large  number  of stage carriage services in the
\nentire Salem District and also on the adjoining inter-district and inter-State <\/p>\n
routes, in the interest of the travelling public.  The first  respondent,  who
\nis  a  stage carriage operator in the Salem District, has applied for grant of
\none stage carriage permit, in respect of the route Komarapalayam to  Edappadi,
\nunder  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”)
\nbefore the  second  respondent-The  Regional  Transport  Authority,  Salem  at
\nNamakkal.  The route falls under the classification of ordinary stage carriage
\nservice,  as  contemplated  under  the  Tamil  Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
\n(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”).  The route applied for, overlaps  on
\nthe   approved  scheme,  in  respect  of  the  route  Edappady  Bus  Stand  to
\nKumarapalayam, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette  dated  22-6-90.
\nThis scheme  was  under  challenge  before  this Court in W.P.Nos.  7201 of 90
\netc., batch, along with other 249 approved schemes.  All the schemes including
\nthe schemes relied before the 2nd respondent, were struck down by  a  Division
\nBench of  this  Court,  by its Judgment dated31-10-90.  Aggrieved by the same,
\nthe petitioner Corporation along with its other sister transport undertakings,
\npreferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.  When the  Special
\nLeave Petitions were pending before the Supreme Court, as against the judgment
\nof  the  Division Bench of this Court, quashing the approved schemes, the apex
\nCourt, in a case arising from the  State  of  Rajasthan,  involving  identical
\nquestion  of  law,  took  a  contrary view to that of this court and impliedly
\noverruled the said judgment.  The authority  after  taking  into  account  the
\npendency of the appeal on the file of the Supreme Court as well as part of the
\ngrant  route  applied for, overlaps on the approved scheme route, rejected the
\napplication, by its order dated 19-5-92.  Aggrieved by the said order  of  the
\nsecond respondent,  the  first respondent preferred Appeal No.  238 of 1992 on
\nthe file of the third respondent.  During the pendency of the  appeal  on  the
\nfile  of  the  third  respondent, the apex Court set aside the judgment of the
\nDivision Bench of this Court, made in batch of writ petitions,  by  its  order
\ndated 16-4-93 and consequently the schemes are restored and as such during the
\npendency  of  the  appeal, that there is an approved scheme, in respect of the
\nroute Edappadi bus stand to Kumarapalayam, on which  the  grant  route  applied
\nfor,  overlaps  and  that  the  overlapping sector on the scheme is in between
\nKumarapalayam to Annamarkoil.   Pending  appeal  on  the  file  of  the  third
\nrespondent,  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  notified  Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
\n(Special Provisions) Act, popularly known as Tamil Nadu Act 41\/1992.   As  per
\nSection  7  of  the  Act  41  of 1992, “every application for the grant of new
\npermit on a notified route and all  appeals,  arising  therefrom  or  relating
\nthereto,  made  or prepared before the date of the publication of this Act, in
\nthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette and pending before any  Court  or  with  any
\nOfficer, authority  or  Tribunal, on the said date shall stand abate”.  On the
\ndate of the publication of this Act in the Gazette, the appeal  filed  by  the
\nfirst respondent was pending and further it is an admitted case that the grant
\nroute  applied  for overlaps on the notified route and consequently the appeal
\nfiled by the first respondent is hit by  section  7  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Act
\n41\/1992  and  on  the  date when the appeal was heard by the third respondent,
\nnamely, 8-6-93, that there is no appeal pending in the eye of law, as the same
\nstand abated on the date of notification of the Tamil Nadu Act 41\/1992.   When
\nthe  appeal  was  taken  up  for hearing on 8-6-93, the petitioner-Corporation
\nbrought to the notice of the Tribunal that as  the  grant  route  applied  for
\noverlaps  on  the  approved  scheme referred to above and the appeal is hit by
\nsection 7 of the Tamil Nadu Act 41\/92.  The  third  respondent,  relying  upon
\nitem  (3)  of  Schedule II of the scheme, held that the schemes relied upon by
\nthe petitioner-Corporation does not affect the grant route applied for by  the
\nfirst   respondent,  as  that  being  mofussil  service,  whereas  the  scheme
\ncontemplates town services.  On that ground, the third  respondent  overlooked
\nthe  objections of the petitioner-Corporation and granted the permit in favour
\nof the first respondent by its proceedings dated 8 -6-93.   Aggrieved  by  the
\nsaid   order,  the  petitioner-Corporation  has  preferred  the  present  writ
\npetition.  Similar averments have been made by the very  same  Corporation  in
\nrespect of  other routes which overlaps the approved scheme.  On the very same
\ngrounds, the private operators\/objectors also filed the other  writ  petitions
\nas stated above.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  The point for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the
\norder  of the third respondent granting permit overlapping the approved scheme
\nis sustainable or not?\n<\/p>\n
5.  First I shall consider the maintainability of the writ petitions,  namely,
\nW.P.Nos.  14651  to 14654 of 93 filed by the private operators.  By relying on
\na decision of the Supreme Court in  MITHILESH  RANI  v.    REGIONAL  TRANSPORT
\nAUTHORITY, DEHRADUN,<\/a>  , Mr.  V.A.\n<\/p>\n
Sadagopan, learned counsel appearing for the grantee, would contend  that  the
\nwrit petitions filed by the private operators are not maintainable, since they
\ncannot  rely the above scheme and it is for the State Transport Corporation to
\nquestion the same.  First of all, against the very same  order  of  the  third
\nrespondent-State  Transport Appellate Tribunal, Anna Transport Corporation has
\nfiled Writ Petition Nos.  13114 to 13117 of 93, in such  a  circumstance,  the
\nsaid objection  is  liable  to be rejected.  The Supreme Court in the decision
\nreferred to above has held that, (para 14) <\/p>\n
  “14…..Copy of the approved scheme or draft scheme, if any, has not been placed
\nbefore us.  We do not know whether the scheme excludes the  private  operators
\nwholly or  partly.   Another and more important circumstance is that the State
\nTransport Undertaking has not chosen to challenge the grant of permits to  the
\nappellants.   It  is only the respondents 3 and 4 who are operating on a route
\nwhich partially overlaps the route concerned herein that have chosen  to  come
\nforward.   We  are  not  inclined  to  entertain  the  said objection at their
\ninstance, more particularly, when a copy of the scheme(s) even  has  not  been
\nfiled… .”\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships  declined  to  go into the said question.  In our case, it was
\ndemonstrated before me that the petitioners in W.P.Nos.  14651 to 14654 of  93
\nare  stage  carriage operators operating on the route granted in favour of the
\nthird respondent therein and has  got  a  substantial  sector  of  the  permit
\ngranted in  their  favour.   They specifically asserted that the grant made in
\nfavour of the third respondent therein is  violation  of  approved  scheme  of
\nNationalisation,  contrary  to  the  provisions  of the Act and the Rules made
\nthereunder.  In this regard, Mr.  M.  Krishnappan,  learned  counsel  for  the
\nprivate  operaotors\/objectors very much relied on a Division Bench judgment of
\nthis Court in Writ Appeal No.  331 of 1994 and Writ Petition Nos.  22605\/93, 3\n<\/p>\n
937.  3938, 4110 and 4111 of 94 dated 29-6-94 (V.  GOWRI AND OTHERS v.   RAMAN
\nROADWAYS, REPRESENTED BY  ITS  PROPRIETOR  R.  VENKATAVARADAN AND OTHERS).  In
\nthe said common judgment, similar question  was  considered  by  the  Division
\nBench.   An  argument was placed before the Division Bench that as the Act has
\ndispensed with the requirement of calling for  objections,  and  the  existing
\noperators  have  no right to object to the grant of permit, they cannot have a
\nright to challenge the variation granted.    After  referring  to  an  earlier
\nDivision  Bench  decision  of  this  Court  in  PATTUKOTTAI AZHAGIRI TRANSPORT
\nCORPORATION LIMITED v.  REGIONAL TRANSPORT  AUTHORITY,  THIRUVANNAMALAI  (Writ
\nAppeal No.<\/a>   978 of 1993 dated 4th October, 1993) as well as a decision of the
\nSupreme Court in MITHILESH GARG v.  UNION OF INDIA ,  the
\nDivision Bench has held that the existing operators can also have a say in the
\nmatter and  the petitions filed are maintainable.  The Division Bench decision
\nsupports the claim made by the private operators\/ objectors.  Whereas, in  the
\ncase before the  Supreme  Court  cited by Mr.  Sadagopan
\n(cited supra), as copy of the approved scheme or draft scheme was  not  placed
\nbefore  the  Court,  the  Court  was  not  aware  of  the terms of the scheme.
\nFurther, the State Transport Undertaking has not chosen to challenge the grant
\nof permit in that case.  Here, in our case, the approved scheme is before  the
\nCourt.   The  State  Transport  Undertaking  has  also  filed  writ  petitions
\nchallenging the grant made by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.  In such
\na circumstance, the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by Mr.   Sadagopal
\n  is  not  applicable  to his claim and in view of the
\nDivision Bench decision of this Court referred  to  above,  I  hold  that  the
\npetitioners in  W.P.Nos.   14651 to 14654\/93 have locus standi to maintain the
\nsaid writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
6. Coming to the merits of the order passed by the  State  Transport  Appellate
\nTribunal, it was demonstrated before me that the route applied for overlaps on
\nthe approved  scheme.    As  rightly  argued,  the  State  Transport Appellate
\nTribunal failed to take note of Section 7  of  Tamil  Nadu  Act  41\/92.    The
\nfollowing  provisions  from  the  Tamil  Nadu  Motor  Vehicles Rules, 1989 are
\nrelevant:-\n<\/p>\n
 “Rule 3 (e) “City and Town Service” means a service plying  in  a  city  or  a
\nMunicipal  Town  or  any  built up place notified in the Tamil Nadu Government
\nGazette as “City” or “Town”  for  this  purpose  by  the  Transport  Authority
\nconcerned with  the  prior  concurrence  of the State Transport Authority.  No
\nroute shall lie entirely outside, but atleast one  terminus  of  it  shall  be
\nwithin  the  limits of municipal town or a city or any built up place notified
\nfor the purpose.  The aggregate distance of a “town” or “City  Service”  route
\nlying  partly within and partly outside the limits of a municipal town or city
\nor any  built  up  place,  notified  for  the  purpose  shall  not  exceed  30
\nkilometres:\n<\/p>\n
 (i)  “Express  Service” means a service plying on route covering a distance of
\nnot less than 120 kilometres, the permit  for  which  prescribes  that  on  an
\naverage  the  stage carriage shall stop to pick up or set down passengers only
\nonce for every 25 kilometres of the total distance covered by its  route,  the
\nstarting and terminal places being excluded for this purpose:\n<\/p>\n
(p) “Ordinary Service” means a service plying in an area other than the Madras
\nMetropolitan  area  and  routes  other  than  City and Town service routes and
\nexcludes an Express Service:”\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of the above statutory  provisions  clearly  shows  that  the  State
\nTransport Appellate Tribunal failed to note that there is no class of services
\nas  mofussil,  either  under  the  Act or under the Rules, and consequently it
\n(Appellate  Tribunal)  erred  in  classifying  the  service   of   the   first
\nrespondent\/applicant is one for mofussil and whereas the scheme relied upon by
\nthe  Transport  Corporation  is  with  reference  to town services, which is a
\nmaterial error.  The relevant clauses from the approved scheme as published in
\nthe Tamil Nadu Government Gazette are as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “HOME DEPARTMENT
\nAPPROVAL OF SCHEME OF STATE TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING
\n(G.O.Ms.No.  1251, Home (Transport-D), 22nd June, 1990) <\/p>\n
Schedule I <\/p>\n
Area of route in relation to which ..  EDAPPADY BUS STAND
\nthe scheme is proposed.  KUMARAPALAYAM.\n<\/p>\n
Schedule II <\/p>\n
 1.Route (Starting point and terminus ..1.Edapaddy  Bus  stand  with  important
\nintermediate            to Kumarapalayam
\nstations and route length) or           (via) Kullampatty,
\nportion thereof with distance   Chettipatty,Thevoor,
\nAnnamarkoil,
\n                                                Pamakoodal,
\n        Puliyampatty and
\n                Government Hospital                                        (
\nRouteLength:26Kms).\n<\/p>\n
2.  xx xx <\/p>\n
3. Class of service to be introduced ..  Town
\nby the State Transport Under- Service\/Ordinary.\n<\/p>\n
taking (Metropolitan, Town,
\nOther Services, Ordinary or
\nExpress) <\/p>\n
4.  xx xx <\/p>\n
5.  xx xx <\/p>\n
6.  Number of vehicles intended to be ..  One-tenth of the
\nkept in reserve to maintain the total number of
\nservice and to provide for special buses actually
\noccasions.”                                             running on Town
\n                                                routes.\n<\/p>\n
It  is  contended  by  the  learned counsel for the Transport Corporation that
\nClause (3) of the Scheme contemplates  class  of  services  and  corresponding
\nthereto.   It is also contended that the Town service\/ ordinary service, which
\nmeans, that the scheme takes within its fold, both the town  service  and  the
\nordinary  service  and  whereas  the  interpretation  of the Tribunal that the
\nordinary service contemplated under the Act is within the Town  service  is  a
\nmaterial error,  which  are  writ large on the face of the order.  The proviso
\nwhich forms part of subrule (i) of Rule 3 of the  Tamil  Nadu  Motor  Vehicles
\nRules,  1989  which  contemplates express service, which means, in the City or
\nTown an express service may be operated if the granting  authority  prescribes
\nsuch a  condition  in  the permit.  The finding of the Tribunal that there are
\nservices within the town service, express service and ordinary  service  is  a
\nmisconceived one.    As  rightly  argued,  this  proviso has no application to
\nsub-rule (i) of Rule 3; consequently the reasoning  of  the  Tribunal  relying
\nupon this proviso cannot be accepted.  The schemes that are framed pursuant to
\nRule  280  of  the  Rules  and  in  the  schemes,  Clause  (3)  of Schedule II
\ncontemplates class of service, which are Metropolitan, Town, other service  or
\nordinary\/express.   A  perusal of these classes would go to show that there is
\nno mofussil service contemplated under this format.  Therefore, the meaning to
\nbe given to each class of service contemplated in the format depends upon  the
\ndefinition  contained  in  Rule  2  of  the  Rules and inasmuch as there is no
\nmofussil service contemplated, either in the statutory format of the  schedule
\nor  under  the  definition  clause, the Tribunal committed an error in holding
\nthat ordinary service mentioned under the class of services in the  scheme  is
\nthe ordinary service, within the town service is a material error.\n<\/p>\n
7.   Further, as per the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 92 which holds the field, so far
\nas the State of Tamil Nadu, that Act also contemplates no new permit shall  be
\ngranted  under  this  Act  to  any  person on any route covered by an Approved
\nScheme.  As rightly argued, this Act is meant for stage carriage  service  and
\nwhen  this section contemplates any route covered by an Approved Scheme route,
\nwhether it is town or ordinary or express route, then no class of service  can
\nbe granted  on such approved schemes.  When this being the legal position, the
\nTribunal committed an error in granting permit on the  part  of  the  notified
\nroute,  on  the  strength  of classification of the services, within the stage
\ncarriage, which is a material error, apparent on the face of the record.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The Tribunal has also committed an error in relying upon the  judgment  of
\nthis Court  made  in  W.P.No.    3584\/76  which  had been rendered without any
\nreference to any of the provisions of the Act and consequently the same has no
\nbinding effect as precedent.  As  discussed  earlier,  the  classification  of
\nservices is without any distinction or difference.  I have already referred to
\nthe  Rules  framed  under the Motor Vehicles Act which defines Town service as
\nwell as Ordinary service.  Rule 3 (e)  defines  City  and  Town  service;  (i)
\ndefines  express  service;  (n)  defines  Metropolitan  service;  (o)  defines
\nmini-bus; and  (p)  defines  ordinary  service.    On  a  reading  of  various
\ndefinitions  would  indicate  that  ordinary  service  is  other than the town
\nservice and, therefore, the application filed by the  3rd  respondent  for  an
\nordinary  service  is  not maintainable; hence the grant made in his favour by
\nthe Tribunal is liable to be set aside.    I  have  already  referred  to  the
\nprovisions in  the  Tamil Nadu Act 41\/92.  As per Section 6 (4 ) no new permit
\ncan be granted on any route covered by  an  approved  scheme  irrespective  of
\nwhether the  class  of  service is ordinary or town service or otherwise.  All
\nthat is necessary is to find out whether  the  permit  sought  to  be  granted
\noverlaps  on an approved scheme route and if that is so, no application can be <\/p>\n
granted under the terms of that  section.    Further,  the  appeal  which  was
\npending  as on 31-7-92 before the Tribunal automatically stands abated in view
\nof the applicability of the scheme referred to above.  It is  clear  that  the
\ngrant itself is without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
9.   Under  these  circumstances,  the  impugned  common  order  of  the State
\nTransport Appellate Tribunal, Madras dated 8-6-93 are quashed and all the writ
\npetitions are allowed.   No  costs.    Consequently,  connected  W.M.Ps.,  are
\nclosed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P Sathasivam ORDER P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Since the writ petitions are filed against the common order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras\/third respondent herein, they are being disposed of by the following […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60068","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnna Transport Corporaiton ... vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, ... on 21 December, 2001 - 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\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anna Transport Corporaiton ... vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-23T11:43:37+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T11:43:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2863,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\",\"name\":\"Anna Transport Corporaiton ... vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-23T11:43:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Anna Transport Corporaiton ... vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, ... on 21 December, 2001 - 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\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anna Transport Corporaiton ... vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-23T11:43:37+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001","datePublished":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T11:43:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001"},"wordCount":2863,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001","name":"Anna Transport Corporaiton ... vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, ... on 21 December, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-23T11:43:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anna-transport-corporaiton-vs-smt-m-uma-maheswari-on-21-december-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anna Transport Corporaiton … vs Smt. M. Uma Maheswari, … on 21 December, 2001"}]},{"@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\/60068","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=60068"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60068\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}