{"id":93831,"date":"1971-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971"},"modified":"2016-06-11T22:05:39","modified_gmt":"2016-06-11T16:35:39","slug":"shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971","title":{"rendered":"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1804, \t\t 1972 SCR (2) 853<\/div>\n
Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Dua, I.D., Khanna, Hans Raj, Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHAIK MADAR SAHEB AND ORS.  ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/12\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\nDUA, I.D.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1804\t\t  1972 SCR  (2) 853\n\n\nACT:\nAndhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (5 of 1963),\t ss.\n3 and 17-Interstate routes-Enhancement of tax-Validity.\nConstitution of India, 1950, Arts. 301 and 304-Tax if should\nbe reasonable and in public interest.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder  s.  3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor  Vehicles  Taxation\nAct, 1963, the State Government is empowered by notification\nto  direct  that  the tax should be levied  on\tevery  motor\nvehicle used or kept for use in a public place in the State,\nsubject\t to  the maximum specified in  the  First  Schedule.\nSection\t 17  of the Act vests in the  State  Government\t the\npower to amend the Schedules in the manner prescribed.\nIn   1963,  the\t State\tGovernment  issued  a\tnotification\nincreasing  the\t taxes and, in 1968,  the  State  Government\namended\t the  First Schedule and increased the\tmaximum\t tax\npayable and issued a notification directing the substitution\nof the higher rates.  Both the increases were challenged  by\nthe appellants but the High Court dismissed the petitions.\nIn  appeal  to this Court it was contended that\t :  (1)\t the\nrestrictions  imposed  by the tax were\tunreasonable  having\nregard to Art. 19(1)(g) read with cl. (6) and Art. 301;\t (2)\nsince part of the route lay outside the respondent-State the\nlevy  in  respect  of the entire mileage  could\t not  be  of\ncompensate  nature; and (3) there was no  justification\t for\nlevying tax on spare buses.\nDismissing the appeals,\nHELD  :\t (1)  (a) The facts and\t figures  disclosed  in\t the\ncounter\t  affidavits  of  the.\t State\tdo  not\t justify   a\nconclusion  that the levy was a general one  for  augmenting\nthe  revenues of the State.  Even after the levy  the  total\nreceipts from the tax fell short of expenditure on roads and\nallied purposes.  The enhancement was only intended to\tmeet\nthe  expanding requirements of maintenance of old roads\t and\ndevelopment  of the road system as a whole and is  therefore\nonly a compensatory measure. [862 G-H]\n(b)Further,  the impost would not result in bus\t operators\nrunning\t their business at a loss, especially when they\t had\nbeen permitted to increase the fares. [862 H]\n(c) The figures relied upon by the appellants in the  report\nof the Road Transport Taxation Inquiry Committee do not give\na completely accurate picture relevant to the present  case.\n[860 E-G]\nNazeeria  Motor Services v. Andhra Pradesh, [1970] 2  S.C.R.\n52. followed.\n(2)There  were reciprocal arrangements between the  States\nand consequently the provisions made by the other States  in\nregard to the\n7-L736SupCI\/72\n854\nfree  movement\ton their roads\tconstituted  a\tcompensatory\nmeasure for the tax even though it was wholly levied by\t the\nrespondent State. [862 F-G]\n(3)It was imperative for the owner of a fleet of buses\tto\nmaintain spare vehicles to be available for substitution  in\ncase  of  breakdown.  Accordingly, the levy of tax  on\tsuch\nbuses which can at any time be put on the road is  justified\nand  s. 3 empowers the State to levy such a tax on  a  motor\nvehicle kept for use. [863 A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 932 to 934
\nof 1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and order dated September 6,\t1963
\nof the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 361,
\n430  and 706 of 1963 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1439 to 1441  of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and order dated April 26, 1968  of
\nthe  Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.  1792,
\n1818 and 1819 of 1968 and Writ Petitions Nos. 164 and 166 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Under  Article\t32  of the Constitution\t of  India  for\t the
\nenforcement of the Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
S.V. Gupte, K. Srinivasamurthy, Naunit Lal and\tSwaranjit
\nSodhi,\tfor  the  appellants (in all the  appeals)  and\t the
\nPetitioners (in both the Petitions).\n<\/p>\n
P.   Ram  Reddy and G. Narayana Rao, for respondents Nos.  1
\nand  2 (in C.A. No. 932 of 1968).\n<\/p>\n
P.   Ram  Reddy and A. V. V. Nair, for the  respondents\t (in
\nC.A. Nos. 933 and 934 of 1968).\n<\/p>\n
P.Ram Reddy and K. Javaram, for the respondents (in  C.A.
\nNos.  1439  to 1441 of 1968 and W.Ps. Nos. 164\tand  166  of
\n1968).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nMitter, J. All these appeals and Writ Petitions are directed
\nagainst the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (V of
\n1963)  and  notifications issued thereunder.  In  the  first
\ngroup of appeals, the notification challenged is G.O.Ms. No.
\n601  Home (Transport 11) Department dated 27th March,  1963.
\nIn the second group of appeals Nos. 1439-1441\/68 and in\t the
\ntwo writ petitions the impugned notification is numbered as
\nG.O.Ms.\t No. 435 Home (Transport 11) Department dated  March
\n28, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
855<\/span><\/p>\n
The  appellants and the writ petitioners carry on  transport
\nbusiness  in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  tinder  stage
\ncarriage permits granted by the Transport authorities under
\nthe Motor ‘Vehicles Act IV of 1939.  Their complaint against
\nthe ever increasing burden of taxation they are called\tupon
\nto bear which is said to have passed the breaking point.   A
\nshort history of the taxes levied in the area which came  to
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t from the State of Madras and  the  increase
\nthereof\t from stage to stage by the new State based  on\t the
\nseating\t capacity  of  buses  with  stage  carriage  permits
\nreferred  to in the pleadings is recited in the judgment  of
\nthis Court in Nazeeria Motor Service v. A. P. State(1).\t The
\nlatest\tlegislation  on the subject which  was\tbefore\tthis
\nCourt  in that case was Validating Act of 1961\traising\t the
\nrate  to  Rs. 37-50 per seat per quarter per  bus  effective
\nfrom   April  1,  1962.\t  The  Court  upheld   the   impost.
\nThereafter,  the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation\t Act
\n(Act  V of 1963) came into force on the 20th March  of\tthat
\nyear after receiving the assent of the President on February
\n2,  1963.   This is the Act now in force.  It is an  Act  to
\nconsolidate  and  amend the law relating to levy  a  tax  on
\nmotor  vehicles\t in the State of Andhra Pradesh.   Under  s.
\n3(1)  of  the  Act  the State  Government  is  empowered  by
\nnotification  from time to time, to direct that a tax  shall
\nbe  levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in  a
\npublic\tplace  in the State.  Under sub-s. (2) of s.  3\t the
\nnotification  is to specify the class of motor\tvehicles  on
\nwhich, the rates for the periods of which and the date\tfrom
\nwhich,\tthe tax is to be levied.  Under the proviso  to\t the
\nsub-section  the rates of tax are not to exceed the  maximum
\nspecified in column (2) of the First Schedule.\tS. 17 of the
\nAct  vests  in\tthe  State Government  power  to  amend\t the
\nschedules in the manner prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
On  March 27, 1963 a notification No. G.O.M. 601 was  issued
\nby the State Government in its Transport Department imposing
\na  tax\tof Rs. 60 per seat per quarter on  vehicles  running
\nless  than  100\t miles per day and  Rs.\t 67-50\ton  vehicles
\ncovering  a higher mileage.  A crop t of writ petitions\t was
\nfiled before the High Court in the year 1963 praying for the
\nissue,\tof a writ restraining the State, from enforcing\t the
\nprovisions of the Act of 1963 and of the notification  dated
\nMarch  27,  1963.   By a common\t judgment  and\torder  dated
\nSeptember  6,  1963 the High Court dismissed  all  the\twrit
\npetitions.   The first group of appeals arises out  of\tthis
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t contended on behalf of the petitioners\t before\t the
\nHigh  Court in that case, the appellants in the first  group
\nof appeals before us, that the statute was inconsistent with
\nthe  doctrine of freedom of trade and commerce\tembodied  in
\nPart  XIII  of\tthe  Constitution  and\tsecondly  ;that\t  it
\ninfringed the equality clause
\n(1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 52.\n<\/p>\n
856<\/span><\/p>\n
enshrined in Art. 14.  An attempt was made, on behalf of the
\npetitioners  by reference to certain figures  regarding\t the
\nincome\tof  the\t State\tfrom this  source  of  tax  and\t the
\nexpenditure  pertaining\t to this topic that the\t taxes\twere
\nlevied\tmore  for purposes of general revenue of  the  State
\nthan  as  a  benefit  for the  facilities  afforded  to\t the
\noperators of transport vehicles, since the taxes were far in
\nexcess of the requirements for the construction of new roads
\nand bridges and the maintenance of existing ones.  The\tHigh
\nCourt found itself unable to accept the above submission and
\non a scrutiny of the budget estimates for the year  1963-64,
\nthe receipts under the Taxation Act, the amount collected by
\nway of taxes on the sale of motor spirits allocable to\tthis
\nhead,  came to the conclusion that the whole  revenue  would
\nnot exceed Rs. 6 crores while the expenditure incurred would
\nexceed\tRs. 8,54,00,000.  The finding of the High Court\t was
\nthat
\n\t      “far  from  there being any surplus  over\t the
\n\t      expenditure,  the taxes collected\t under\tthis
\n\t      head were insufficient to meet the demands  in
\n\t      this respect.”\n<\/p>\n
According to the High Court the object of the Act being only
\nto  raise  the money required to afford\t facilities  to\t the
\noperators of the transport vehicles, the tax levied answered
\nthe  description of compensatory tax and did  not  interfere
\nwith  the freedom of trade and commerce.  As such the  taxes
\nwere  held not to offend Art. 301 of the Constitution.\t The
\nHigh Court further took the view that it had not been  shown
\nthat  “the  power  ceded to the\t State\tGovernment  by\tthis
\nlegislative measure was in any way detrimental to the public
\ngood  or  that\tit  was\t opposed  to  the  well\t  recognised
\nprinciples underlying taxation.” The High Court turned\tdown
\nthe contention that the taxes in question were arbitrary  or
\noppressive or that they constituted an unbearable burden  so
\nas to destroy the very business of the writ petitioners.  On
\nthe facts before the court as disclosed in the affidavits it
\ndid not feel disposed to hold that the operators were  doing
\nbusiness at a loss.  It also took the view that the increase
\nin  the fares sanctioned simultaneously with the raising  of
\nthe taxes had proved beneficial to the operators.  Reference
\nwas made to the fact that even subsequent to the enhancement
\nof  the\t tax  there had been  considerable  competition\t for
\nsecuring  permits  whenever any proposal was mooted  by\t the
\ntransport  authorities which according to the court went  to
\nshow that the operators themselves considered that it  would
\nbe a profitable business.  In the opinion of the High Court,
\nthe increase in the taxes was more than offset by the  sanc-
\ntioned\tincrease  in  the fares and  the  grievance  of\t the
\noperators  that the taxes were an  unreasonable\t restriction
\nwas  negatived.\t  Finally  the High  Court  held  that\tthe-
\nimpugned Act had survived the test laid down by Art.  304(b)
\nof  the Constitution and had not transgressed the limits  of
\nreasonableness.\n<\/p>\n
857<\/span><\/p>\n
It  is not necessary for the disposal of these\tappeals\t and
\nwrit petitions to go into the question of violation of\tArt.
\n14  as that point was not canvassed in view of the  decision
\nof this Court in Nazeeria Motor Service case(1).
\nOn March 22, 1968 the Government of Andhra Pradesh purported
\nto amend the First Schedule to the Act by ,notification\t No.
\n434  by increasing the maximum quarterly tax in\t respect  of
\nsubitems  (iii) and (iv) of item 4 to Rs. 121 in respect  of
\nbuses Plying exclusively within municipal limits and to\t Rs.
\n135  in the case of other buses.  On the same day the  State
\nGovernment  issued notification No. 435 in exercise  of\t the
\npowers conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 9 of the Act  directing
\nthe substitution of higher taxes in respect of buses covered
\nby  the\t aforementioned\t subitems of item  4  of  the  First
\nSchedule.   The\t new  notification  No.\t 435  provided\t for
\ndifferent  rates according to mileage; at the lower  end  of
\nthe  scale i.e. for a distance of 50 miles per day the\trate
\nwas Rs. 40 per quarter per seat while in the case where\t the
\ndistance exceeded 200 miles the tax was raised to Rs.  II  0
\nper seat per quarter.  In effect, the petitioners contended,
\nthe incidence of tax was increased by about 50 per cent.  It
\nwas also claimed that the procedure adopted for the levy  of
\nthe tax had been changed and instead of a flat rate of\tlevy
\non  the\t basis\tof the number of seats it was  now  made  to
\nrelate\tto  the\t actual\t mileage  per  day  covered  by\t the
\nvehicles.  A challenge was made to the additional impost  on
\nspare buses which bus operators running more than a  certain
\nnumber\tof buses per day were obliged to reserve for use  in
\nthe event of any break-down.  It was asserted that even\t for
\nthese  buses, no matter whether they were actually  used  or
\nnot,  tax  was levied at the rate of Rs. 30  per  seat per
\nquarter.\n<\/p>\n
The  points  of law raised by this set of  writ\t petitioners
\nbefore the High Court were\n<\/p>\n
(a)that prior sanction of the President as required  under
\nArt. 304(b) was not obtained in respect of the levy inasmuch
\nas such sanction was given in February and the levy was made
\ntowards\t the end of March.  As such it was said\t G.O.M.\t 435
\nwas unconstitutional and void.\n<\/p>\n
(b)the\tproposed  increase in the rate of tax was  not\tin
\npublic interest but only a revenue yielding measure.   Since
\nit did not company with the provisions of Part III and\tPart
\nXIII\tof   the   Constitution\t  it   was    illegal\t and
\nunconstitutional. and\n<\/p>\n
(c) the levy of tax on spare buses was illegal.
\nBy a common judgment and order dated April 26, 1968 the High
\nCourt  rejected\t the contentions raised and  dismissed\tthis
\ngroup of writ petitions.  This had led to the filing of\t the
\nsecond group of appeals before us.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 52
\n858<\/span>
\nThe  two  writ petitions filed in this Court under  Art.  32
\nraise identical questions.\n<\/p>\n
In  Nazeeria Motor Service case(1) the central question\t was
\nthe  constitutionality of the Andhra Pradesh Motor  Vehicles
\n(Taxation   of’\t  Passengers;  and  Goods)   Amendment\t and
\nValidation Act XXXIV of 1961.  The points urged in that case
\nbefore this Court were :-\n<\/p>\n
1.The  Act imposed a tax for augmenting revenues  of  the
\nState.\tIt was neither regulatory nor compensatory in nature
\nand  fell  directly  within  the ban  of  Art.\t301  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
2.Even though there had been compliance with the  proviso
\nto  Art.  304(b) in the matter of obtaining the\t requisite
\nsanction,  it was open to the Court to go into the  question
\nof reasonableness both with regard to the said provision  as
\nalso  Art. 19(1)(g) read with cl. (6) of that article.\t The
\nCourt  was entitled to determine whether the imposition\t was
\nin public interest.\n<\/p>\n
3.The  Act violated Art. 14 of the Constitution\t inasmuch
\nas  it\twas not made applicable to all the areas  under\t the
\nState and vehicles on inter-State routes on permits  granted
\nby  other States had not been subjected to tax in  the\tsame
\nway.\n<\/p>\n
In  deciding  that appeal this Court referred to  the  views
\nexpressed in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v.  State
\nof  Rajasthan & Ors.<\/a> (2), Khyerbari Tea Co. Ltd. &  Anr.  v.
\nState  of  Assam<\/a>(2) and Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd.  v.  State  of
\nAssam<\/a> (4 ) and held that notwithstanding compliance with the
\nprovisions  of the proviso to Art. 304(b) by  obtaining\t the
\nprevious  sanction  of the President to the Bill an  Act  of
\nthis  nature could be held to be valid only if it was  shown
\nthat the restrictions imposed were reasonable and in  public
\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t not contended on behalf of the State in  that\tcase
\nthat the impugned Validating Act imposed a tax which was  by
\nway  of\t regulatory  or\t compensatory  measure.\t  The  Court
\ntherefore  addressed  itself  to the  question\twhether\t the
\nrestrictions imposed were reasonable and in public  interest
\nwithin\t the   meaning\t of  Art.   304(b).    Taking\tinto
\nconsideration  the  finding  of\t the  High  Court  that\t the
\ncomputation  of income by the Income-tax Department of\tsome
\nof the transporters, the income in regard to each bus was of
\nthe  order of Rs. 7,000 per annum as well as the  fact\tthat
\nalthough permitted to charge higher rates the bus  operators
\nhad  not  either  a& a matter of policy or  for\t purpose  of
\nbusiness  competition done so, the Court took the view\tthat
\nthe  restriction imposed was not unreasonable.\tNothing\t was
\nshown either before the High Court
\n(1)  [1970] 2 S.C.R. 52
\n(3)  [1964] 5 S.C.R. 975.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1963] 1 S.C.R. 491.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1961] 1 S.C.R. 809.\n<\/p>\n
859<\/span><\/p>\n
or  before  this  Court\t to  establish\tthat  the   impugned
\nValidating  Act with regard to imposition of tax was not  in
\npublic\tinterest. The utmost according to this\tCourt  “that
\ncould be said was that it would result in the diminution  of
\nprofits.”\n<\/p>\n
The Court also turned down the contention based on the\tvio-
\nlation of Art. 14.\n<\/p>\n
In  the first set of appeals now before us  learned  counsel
\nfor  the appellants submitted that in view of  the,  earlier
\ndecision   of  this  Court  the\t only  question\t  left\t for
\nconsideration was whether the restriction imposed by the tax
\nwas  reasonable\t and  permissible  having  regard  to\tArt.
\n19(1)(g)  read\twith  cl. (6) and Art.\t301.   According  to
\ncounsel\t the  rate of tax fixed at Rs. 67.50  per  seat\t per
\nquarter\t was  an unreasonable burden and not  a\t restriction
\nwhich could be said to be reasonable either in terms of Art.
\n19 or Part XIII of the Constitution.  It was urged that s. 3
\nof  the\t Act empowering the levy of  such,  an\tunreasonable
\nimpost would be ultra vires the aforementioned provisions of
\nthe Constitution.  Attempt was made to show that the  impost
\nwas  purely for the purpose of making revenue and was not  a
\ncompensatory measure.  Reliance was placed on the fact\tthat
\nbefore\tthe raising of the impost to Rs. 67.50 per  _quarter
\nthe  rate  of  tax was Rs. 50 per  seat\t per  quarter.\t Our
\nattention was drawn to annexure ‘A’ attached to the  counter
\naffidavit  of  Writ Petition No. 361 of 1963  out  of  which
\nappeal No. 932 has arisen, giving a chart of quarterly taxes
\npayable\t per seat per quarter on the basis of  mileage\tdone
\nprior to 1-4-1963 and subsequent to the said date.  But this
\nchart  hardly helps the appellants cause.  The\tchart  shows
\nthe motor vehicle tax and the surcharge per seat per  year
\nper  mile on the total daily mileages from 50 miles  to\t 130
\nmiles  and  the\t tax  under  Andhra  Pradesh  Motor  Vehicle
\nTaxation  Act, 1963.  It is clear that the rise in the\trate
\nof  impost excepting in the case of buses with\ta  permitted
\ndaily  mileage of 50 was not considerable and in the  higher
\nmileage\t groups the increase was slight.  According  to\t the
\ncounter\t affidavit  of the State, there were  few,  if\tany,
\nbuses covering less than 50 miles per day.  In that view  of
\nthe  matter  there is no case of distinction so far  as\t the
\nfirst  group  of appeals is concerned from the\tdecision  of
\nthis  Court  in\t Nazeeria  Motor  Company’s  case.   Besides
\nnothing\t was shown to induce us to disregard the figures  in
\nthe  budget estimates referred to by the High Court  in\t its
\njudgment  and  order dated September 6, 1963,  namely,\tthat
\nwhereas the whole revenue from this source was not likely to
\nexceed Rs. 6 crores, the expenditure proposed to be incurred
\non road making, road repairing etc. was expected to  overtop
\nRs. 8,54,00,000.\n<\/p>\n
Mr:Gupte  however tried to draw a picture  different  from
\nthe above in the second set of appeals.\t I referred us to  a
\nreport\tof  an Enquiry Committee styled the  Road  Transport
\nTaxation
\n860<\/span>
\nEnquiry\t Committee  constituted by the Government  of  India
\npublished in November 1967 purporting to show a huge surplus
\nof  revenue over expenditure on roads etc. in ‘the State  of
\nAndhra\tPradesh\t during\t the years  1964-67.   The  relevant
\nportion of the report is given below :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Statement showing the expenditure on Roads by
\n\t      Andhra  Pradesh State during the\tyears  1964-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      67.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “State   Revenue\tfrom  Road   Transport\t and
\n\t      Expenditure  on Roads by Andhra Pradesh  State
\n\t      during the years 1964-67.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t   Expenditure\t       *Figures\t   in lakhs\n\t\t\t\t\t of Rupees\n<\/pre>\n
Year   Revenue\t Original  Mainte-   Total  Surplus
\n\t\t   works   nance
\n1964-65 744.35\t 200.51\t  439.50  694.01   50.34 page 206
\n1965-66 1059.60\t 225.98\t  490 .25   716.23    343.37 page208
\n1966-67\t  1170.00  186.98   398 .14  585.12   548.88page 208
\nNOTE :\t\t Figures  of  expenditure  relate  to  those
\nwhich are spent directly by the State Government and do\t not
\ninclude\t grants given to local bodies for road\tconstruction
\nand maintenance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Estimated  figures  do not include amounts  given  to  local
\nbodies.”\n<\/p>\n
Apparently  the\t figures in the end column purport  to\tshow
\nconsiderable surplus in the revenue from road transport over
\nexpenditure  on roads by the State of Andhra Pradesh  during
\nthe years mentioned.  Our attention was however drawn to the
\nadditional  counter affidavit of the State  affirmed  before
\nthe  High Court on April 24, 1968 wherein it was  said\tthat
\nthe report relied on was misleading and the chart which\t was
\ntaken from the annexures to the report of the Road Transport
\nTaxation  Enquiry Committee showing surplus was contrary  to
\nthe prevalent state of affairs.\t It was categorically stated
\nthat.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “the  figures  given in the annexures  to\t the
\n\t      Report  are  incorrect and the  Government  of
\n\t      Andhra  Pradesh  was not responsible  for\t the
\n\t      misstatements relating to the State of  Andhra
\n\t      Pradesh  found  in the said annexures  to\t the
\n\t      said  Report  of\tthe  said  Taxation  Enquiry
\n\t      Committee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  was\t also  asserted\t in  the  said\taffidavit  that\t the
\nquestionnaire sent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh which
\nwas dated 3-12-1965 did not ask and could not have asked for
\n‘information  regarding the year 1966-67.  It was also\tsaid
\nthat  in the reply dated 12-1-1966 by the, State  Government
\nthe  estimated figure for the construction of roads was\t Rs.
\n2,49,45,200\/-  and the cost of maintenance was Rs. 6  crores
\nand  the  total\t expenditure was thus of the  order  of\t Rs’
\n8,50,00,000\/-.\tIt wag. reiterated that the Taxation Enquiry
\nCommittee did not ask for the figures for 1966-67.\n<\/p>\n
861<\/span><\/p>\n
The  High Court went into this question in some\t detail\t and
\nfound that as per the budget estimates of 1967-68 the  yield
\nunder the said head ‘taxes on motor vehicles under the Motor
\nVehicles Act’, receipts under the Provincial Motor  Vehicles
\nTaxation  Act and other receipts was estimated to add up  to
\nRs.  9,55,53,396\/while the details of the expenditure  under
\nthe  several  heads was of the order of\t Rs.  9,81,65,411\/-.
\nWith  regard  to  the  budgetary  figures  for\t1968-69\t the
\naggregate  of  the  items including  works  on\trepairs\t and
\nmaintenance expenditure on States Highways, road development
\nfund  works,  capital  outlay on roads\tworks  came  to\t Rs.
\n8,75,87,900\/-  and  taking into account the figures  on\t the
\nreceipt\t side in the budget estimates, the court was of\t the
\nview  that  the\t total\treceipts would\tfall  short  of\t the
\nanticipated  expenditure  by about Rs. 50 lakhs.   The\tHigh
\nCourt also scrutinised the statistical data available in the
\nreport\tof  the\t Road Transport Enquiry\t Committee  and\t the
\nexplanation put forward by the State and observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “the  figures given in the report of the\tRoad
\n\t      Transport\t Taxation Enquiry Committee  do\t not
\n\t      give  a completely accurate picture  which  is
\n\t      relevant to the present discussion.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court concluded that the petitioners had not\tbeen
\nable  to  give\tany statistical data  or  adduce  any  sound
\nreasons\t to persuade it to reject the data furnished by\t the
\nbudgetary estimates and the analysis thereof given on behalf
\nof  the\t State\tand  accordingly  held\tthat  the   proposed
\nenhancement  of tax was not designed to augment the  general
\nrevenues of the State but was intended to meet the expending
\nrequirements of maintenance of old roads and development  of
\nthe  road system as a whole.  On these facts the High  Court
\nconcluded that there was no warrant for the charge that\t the
\nincreased levy ceased to be a compensatory measure.
\nIn  the\t second\t group of petitions,  the  High\t Court\talso
\nnegatived the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners
\nthat the increase in taxation would virtually throw them out
\nof  the transport business.  It was argued before  the\tHigh
\nCourt that the increase in the tax being of the order of 50%
\nover the pre-existing levy there was bound to be an enormous
\naddition  to  the  total  revenues of  the  State  and\tthis
\naddition  could\t not  be  said to be  for-  the\t purpose  of
\nproviding   additional\tamenities  to  motor  operators\t  in
\nparticular but was one for adding to the general revenues of
\nthe State.\n<\/p>\n
As  against  this it was submitted on behalf  of  the  State
\nbefore\tthe  High  Court that to meet the  increase  in\t the
\noperational  cost of the operators Government had  permitted
\nan  increase  in  fares to be charged by  the  operators  by
\nanother order bearing the same date as that of the  impugned
\norder.’ Reliance was also placed on the
\n862<\/span>
\nfact  that on previous occasions the operators bad  no\tbeen
\nslow  in  utilising  similar permission to  raise  the\tfare
\nstructure.   It\t was  further submitted on  behalf  of\tthe.
\nState  before,\tthe  High Court\t that  “the  Motor  Vehicles
\nTaxation  had  undergone changes to make it confirm  to\t and
\nsubserve the development of improved means of communication,
\nby  the development of roads and control of transport  etc.”
\nThe  Court also noted the submission on behalf of the  State
\nthat  the general condition of roads in the State  was\tpoor
\nand  it the St-ate were to provide facilities for trade\t and
\ncommerce equal to or comparable with the facilities for easy
\ncommunication available in other States, a large outlay\t for
\nconstruction  of  new roads as also the improvement  of\t the
\nexisting  road system was inevitable.  The High\t Court\tthus
\nfound\tjustification  for  the\t additional  levy   in\t the
\nconditions obtaining in the State.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t submitted before us, as was done  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthat taxation by reference to mileage  specially  in
\nregard\tto  bus operators who had to ply their\tvehicles  in
\nother  States where the rate of taxation was much lower\t was
\nan   anachronism  and  an  unreasonable\t restriction.\t Our
\nattention  was drawn to Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition\t No.
\n1792  of  1968 where the total mileage\tcovered\t by  various
\nbills  operators including the break-up thereof showing\t the
\nmileage in Andhra area, in Madras and Mysore were given\t and
\nit was said :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “While  the buses used by the petitioners\t are
\n\t      taxed  on\t the  basis  of\t the  total  mileage
\n\t      covered by them, the actual user in the  State
\n\t      of  Andhra Pradesh, is much less and  in\tsome
\n\t      cases it constitutes so low a fraction as\t one
\n\t      third of the total mileage;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was therefore contended that the levy. in respect of\t the
\nentire mileage was incompatible with the compensatory nature
\nof  the\t tax.  The High Court accepted\tthe  explanation  on
\nbehalf-of the State that “there were reciprocal arrangements
\nbetween\t the States and consequently the provisions made  by
\nthe  other  States in regard to the free movement  on  their
\nroads,\tconstituted a compensator measure for the  tax\teven
\nthough it is wholly levied by the State of Andhra  Pradesh”.
\nWe see no reason to take a view different from the above.
\nThe facts and figures disclosed do not justify us in  coming
\nto  the\t conclusion  that the levy was\ta  general  one\t for
\naugmenting the revenues of the State.  On the other hand the
\nfigures disclosed show that the total receipts from the\t tax
\neven  now fall short of the expenditure on roads and  allied
\npurposes.  We axe also not satisfied on the material  before
\nus  that  the impost has resulted in bus  operators  running
\ntheir business at a loss.\n<\/p>\n
863<\/span><\/p>\n
The only question. left. is whether there was  justification
\nfor  levy (I an impost at the rate of Rs. 30\/-\tper  quarter
\nper  seat on spare buses.  While it is true that  the  spare
\nbuses are not allowed to be run regularly we see no  reason-
\nto  hold  that because of this the levy is  unjustified,  or
\nceases to be a compensatory tax.  As was pointed out by\t the
\nHigh  Court, under S. 3 of the Act the State Government\t was
\nempowered  by  notification to direct that a  tax  shall  be
\nlevied\ton  every motor vehicle used or kept for  use  in  a
\npublic\tplace in the State and a vehicle kept for use as  a
\nstandby\t was  therefore\t subject to levy  under\t the  taxing
\nprovisions.  It was absolutely imperative for the owner of a
\nfleet  of  buses  to  maintain some  spare  vehicles  to  be
\navailable  for\tsubstitution in the case  of  a\t break-down.
\nEvery  owner having five buses is required to  maintain\t one
\nspare  bus and operators having more than ten buses  are  to
\nkeep  two  such buses available.  Although  they  cannot  be
\nallowed\t to  run regularly it is essential  for\t the  proper
\nregulation  of the transport business that some spare  buses
\nshould\tbe available to avoid inconvenience or\thardship  to
\npassengers.   Accordingly  the levy of a tax on\t such  buses
\nwhich  can  at any time be put on the road is  justified  in
\nlike   manner  as  in  the  case  of  regular  buses  as   a
\ncompensatory levy.\n<\/p>\n
In  the result, the appeals and the writ petitions fail\t and
\nare dismissed with costs.  One set of hearing fee.
\nV. P. S.\t Appeals and petitions dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
864<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1804, 1972 SCR (2) 853 Author: G Mitter Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Dua, I.D., Khanna, Hans Raj, Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: SHAIK MADAR SAHEB AND ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-93831","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 - 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\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-11T16:35:39+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T16:35:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\"},\"wordCount\":4269,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\",\"name\":\"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-11T16:35:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 - 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\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-11T16:35:39+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971","datePublished":"1971-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T16:35:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971"},"wordCount":4269,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971","name":"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-11T16:35:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shaik-madar-saheb-and-ors-etc-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-ors-on-14-december-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shaik Madar Saheb And Ors. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 14 December, 1971"}]},{"@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\/93831","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=93831"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93831\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93831"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93831"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93831"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}