{"id":98187,"date":"1996-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996"},"modified":"2016-06-04T10:13:25","modified_gmt":"2016-06-04T04:43:25","slug":"n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996","title":{"rendered":"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996<\/div>\n
Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nN. VENKATESWARA RAO & ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS.T.A & ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/11\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n     C.A. NOS.\t15713-15918\/93 [@  SLP (C)  Nos.  23497-507,
\n25867, 26003, 26004, 26005-06, 26020, 26724-42, 26999-27104,
\n27127-139, 27188-191,  27206-222,  27235-39,  27395-419\/95],
\nC.A NOS.  15919-921\/96\t[@  SLP\t (C)  NOS.  24395-97\/96\t (CC
\n5297\/95)], C.A.\t NOS. 15922-26\/96  [@ SLP  (C) NOS.  208\/96,
\n209\/96, 24400-401\/96 (CC 82\/96 AND 90\/96], C.A. NO. 16011\/96
\n[@ SLP (C) NO. 24403\/96 (CC 97\/96)], C.A. NOS.15297-16010\/96
\n[@ SLP\t(C) NOS. 270-299\/96, 27757-810\/95], C.A. NOS. 16012-
\n623\/96 [@  SLP (C)  NOS. 24405-07\/96  (CC-160\/96),  3595\/96,
\n548-533\/96, 24970-71\/95,  Q.P. No. 259\/95, C.A. NO. 16624\/96
\n[@ SLP\tNo. 4928\/96]  C.A. NOS. 16594-626\/96 [@ SLP (C) NOS.
\n5877-5909\/96 (CC  778\/96)], C.A.  NOS. 16025-16593\/96 [@ SLP
\n(C) Nos.  5021-34\/96, 6083,  6145-47, 6149-56\/96, 6084-6143,
\n4951-79, 1220-25,  5538-47\/96, 6160-90,\t 8412-31, 6277-6356,
\n7824-47, 8534-69,  8575-8605, 10049-083,  10408,  10445-454,
\n11029-033, 11803-810,  10849-851,  10852-884,  9853,  12027,
\n10828-840, 12028-037, 11890, 12213, 11875-884, 13043, 13185-
\n239\/96,\t 14082-085,   14869,  14768-771,  14870-882,  14892,
\n16952\/96, 22641 AND 22642\/96]
\n\t\t\t O R D E R
\n     Permission to  file special leave petitions is granted.
\nDelay condoned.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.
\n     These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment
\nof the\tDivision Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made
\nin W.P. No. 6211\/90 and batch, on December 21, 1991. All the
\nappellants are owners of public carriers plying in the State
\nof Andhra  Pradesh and\tregistered under  the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, 1988  (hereinafter referred  to as\t the “Act”]  and the
\nRules made  thereunder. Their  vehicles have 3 axles and are
\ncalled Tauras  vehicles. It is their case that due to change
\nin the\tsize of\t the tyres  of the  front axles and the rear
\naxle and  the ply  rating, the maximum self-laden weight got
\nincreased.  Therefore,\t with  permission  of  the  Regional
\nTransport Authority  they have been plying the vehicles with
\nincreased laden weight from August 1988. But after March 31,
\n1990, they  were interdicted  on the  ground that the weight
\nwas in\texcess\tof  maximum  permissible  laden\t weight\t and
\nmaximum safe  axle weight and as a consequence thereof their
\nbusiness of  transporting goods\t has  been  interfered\twith
\nunnecessarily. As this was being done under the Notification
\ndated June  8, 1989  issued by\tthe  Central  Government  in
\nexercise of  its power\tunder Section  58 of  the  Act\tthey
\nchallenged  the\t  said\tNotification   as  ultra  vires\t the
\nprovisions of the Act. After the judgment of the High Court,
\nthe Rules  came to be amended in 1994. When the appeals were
\npreferred before this Court, by order dated February 1, 1996
\nthis Court  pointed out\t that the Central Government have to
\ncarry out  the amendment to the Rules and the Schedule so as
\nto bring  them in  conformity with  the Amendment  Act 54 of
\n1994. Time,  when sought  for to do the needful, was granted
\nto  the\t  Government  of   India.  As\ta  result,  now\t the
\nnotification has  been issued on October 18, 1996 exercising
\nthe power  under Section 58 (1) of the Act and also appended
\nexplanatory note to the said notification.\n<\/p>\n
     S\/Shri Sudhir  Chandra, Rajiv  Dhawan, Smt. Amareswari,
\nlearned senior\tcounsel and  Shri L.N.\tRao, learned counsel
\nfor the\t appellants, contend that the notification issued by
\nthe Government,\t in particular the words “whichever is less”
\nafter the  end of the three clauses, is in abdication of the
\npower given  to the  Central Government\t under Section 58(1)
\nwhich empowers\tthe  Central  Government  to  prescribe\t the
\nmaximum gross  vehicle weight  and  the\t maximum  safe\taxle
\nweight by  way of  an appropriate Notification. The impugned
\nNotification  after  referring\tto  the\t three\tindices\t has
\nprovided that  the maximum  gross  vehicle  weight  and\t the
\nmaximum safe  axle  weight  shall  be  out  of\tthese  three
\nindicated weights,  whichever is  less.\t By  providing\tlike
\nthat, it  has, instead\tof fixing  such weight\titself,\t has
\neither abdicated  or delegated\tthe power  in favour  of the
\nmanufacturer. The  Notification, as it is, clearly indicates
\nthat the  Central Government  has not  exercised  its  power
\nproperly but has left determination of maximum gross vehicle
\nweight\tand   the  maximum   safe   axle   weight   to\t the
\nmanufacturers. It was, therefore, submitted that exercise of
\nthe power  is thus not consistent with the provisions of the
\nAct. Shri  Rajiv  Dhawan  has  further\tcontended  that\t the
\nRegistering Authority  has been\t given free-hand  either  to
\nregister or  refuse to register the vehicles which is not in
\nconformity with the Schedule and that, therefore, the action
\nwould always  an impediment  to have the vehicle registered.
\nThereby, the  Central Government have obviated the statutory
\npower given under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri P.P.\tMalhotra, learned  senior  counsel  for\t the
\nUnion of  India, on the other hand, contends that Section 58
\nshould be  read with  the Rules.  Chapter  7  of  the  Rules
\nprescribed various circumstances enumerated in the matter of
\nconstruction,  equipment   and\tmaintenance   of  the  motor
\nvehicles. After\t taking into  consideration all the relevant
\nfactors, namely,  the maximum  axle  weight,  size  and\t ply
\nrating of  the tyres  and all  other relevant  factors,\t the
\nmanufacturers  as   well  as  the  testing  authorities\t are
\nrequired  to   ensure  that  the  Act  and  the\t Rules\tmade
\nthereunder are\tstrictly complied  with. The notification is
\nonly to\t ensure such  a\t compliance.  Thereby,\tthe  Central
\nGovernment have\t not abdicated the power given under Section
\n58 of  the Act\tto the\tmanufactures nor  to the Registering
\nAuthority as  its delegatee.  Shri Raghuvir,  learned senior
\ncounsel appearing  for the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,\t has
\nfurther argued that the indicia provided, namely, `whichever
\nis less’ in the notification would manifests the object that
\nthe  roadworthiness  requires  to  be  considered  when\t the
\nvehicle is  registered; the  entries in\t the register  would
\nindicate the  maximum vehicle  weight, axle  weight and\t the
\n`tyre weight’  which would  approximately be  less than\t the
\nmaximum prescribed  so that the load weight of the goods and
\nvehicle weight\tremain constant\t the roadworthiness  of\t the
\nvehicle would be continued and the safety of the carriage of
\ngoods would  also be  ensured. If  such\t a  construction  is
\nadopted, the  Government of  India cannot  be said  to\thave
\nabdicated their power given under Section 58 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In view  of the rival contentions raised by the learned
\ncounsel on either side, the question is whether the impugned
\nnotification dated  October 18,\t 1996 is  in conformity with
\nthe provision  of the  Act? Section  2(3) of the Act defines
\n“axle weight”  to mean, in relation to an axle of a vehicle,
\nthe total  weight transmitted by the several wheels attached
\nto that\t axle to  the surface  on which\t the vehicle  rests.
\nSection 2  (15) defines\t “gross vehicle\t weight” to mean, in
\nrespect of  any vehicle\t the total weight of the vehicle and
\nload certified\tand registered\tby the Registering Authority
\nas permissible\tfor that  vehicle. Section  2  (36)  defines
\n“registered axle  weight” to mean, in respect of the axle of
\nany vehicle, the axle weight certified and registered by the
\nRegistering Authority for that axle. “Registering Authority”
\nhas been  defined under\t Section 2(37)\tto mean an authority
\nempowered to register motor vehicles under Chapter IV.
\nSection\t 109   in  Chapter   VII  of   the  Act\t deals\twith
\nconstruction,  equipment   and\tmaintenance   of  the  motor
\nvehicles. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1) Every\t motor vehicle\tshall be
\n     so construed  and so  maintained as
\n     to\t be   at  all  times  under  the
\n     effective\tcontrol\t of  the  person
\n     driving the vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) Every motor vehicle shall be so
\n     constructed as  to have  right hand
\n     steering  control\t unless\t it   is
\n     equipped  with   a\t mechanical   of
\n     electrical signaling  device  of  a
\n     prescribed nature.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Central  Government have  been\t given\tpower  under
\nSection 110  to\t make  rules  regulating  the  construction,
\nequipment and  maintenance of the motor vehicles. Clause (b)
\nof Section  110(1) provides  that the  size, nature, maximum
\nretail price  and condition  of\t tyres\tincluding  embossing
\nthereon of date and year of manufacture and the maximum load
\ncarrying  capacity   are  required   to\t be  prescribed.  In
\naccordance therewith, the Rules have been made. Chapter V of
\nthe Rules  deal with construction, equipment and maintenance
\nof the\tmotor vehicles. Rule 92 gives a general prescription
\nthat “No  person shall\tuse or\tcause or allow to be used in
\nany public  place any  motor vehicle  which does  not comply
\nwith the  provisions of this Chapter.” Rule 93 gives overall
\ndimensions of  the motor vehicles and Rule 94 prescribes the
\nconditions of  the tyres.  Rule 95  prescribes the size, ply
\nrating of  tyres as  per the  Schedule\tgives  therein,\t the
\ndetails to  which we  will be  dealt with  at a later stage.
\nSuffice it to state that Rule 95 prescribes the sizes of the
\ntyres of  motor vehicles  specified in\tthe column  and\t the
\ntable prescribes  the maximum weight permitted to be carried
\nby such\t tyres specified in the corresponding column 3. Rule
\n126 provides  for the prototype of every motor vehicle to be
\nsubject to  test after the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules,
\n1993 have come into force. It reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “126.  Prototype\tof  every  motor
\n     vehicle to\t be subject to test – On
\n     and from  the date\t of commencement
\n     of\t   Central     Motor\tVehicles
\n     (Amendment)  Rules,   1993,   every
\n     manufacturer  of\tmotor\tvehicles
\n     other  than   trailers  and   semi-
\n     trailers shall submit the prototype
\n     of the  vehicle to\t be manufactured
\n     by him  for  test\tby  the\t vehicle
\n     Research\t   and\t     Development
\n     Establishment of  the  Ministry  of
\n     Defence of the Government of Indian
\n     or Automotive  Research Association
\n     of\t India,\t Pune,\tor  the\t Central
\n     Machinery\tTesting\t  and\tTraining
\n     Institute,\t Budni\t (MP),\tor   the
\n     Indian  Institute\t of   Petroleum,
\n     Dehradun, and  such other\tagencies
\n     as may  be specified by the Central
\n     Government\t   for\t   granting    a
\n     certificate by  that agency  as  to
\n     the compliance of provisions of the
\n     Act and these rules.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Rule  126-A   prescribes  that   the  testing  agencies
\nreferred to  in Rule  126, shall,  in  accordance  with\t the
\nprocedure laid\tdown by the Central Government, also conduct
\ntests on  vehicles drawn  from the  production line  of\t the
\nmanufacturer to verify whether these vehicles conform to the
\nprovisions of  Rule 115\t of the\t Rules. Rule  115 speaks  of
\nemissions of smoke, vapour, etc. from motor vehicle and also
\nother conditions,  the details of which are not material for
\nthe purpose of these cases. Registration of motor vehicle is
\ndealt with  under Rule\t47 read with Form 20 and Rule 47 (a)
\nand (b)\t in conformity with Form 21 and Rule 47 (g), 115(b),
\n124, 126-A  and 127,  as specified  in Form  27. In Form 20,
\ncolumn 25  prescribes specification  of gross vehicle weight
\nas specified  by the  manufacturer and\tthe same  has to  be
\nregistered in  the form.  Column 26  specifies maximum\taxle
\nweight etc.,  the details  of which  have been\tmentioned in
\nclauses (a) to (d). Column 30 prescribes number, description
\nand size of tyres on each axle. Column 31 prescribes maximum
\naxle weight in respect of each axle. Similarly in Form 21 in
\nclauses (a)  to (d)  of column\t11 maximum  axle weight\t and
\nnumber and  description\t of  tyres  (in\t case  of  transport
\nvehicle), front axle, rear axle, any other axle, tandem axle
\nhave been  specified.  Column  13  specifies  gross  vehicle
\nweight. Thus it could be seen that all the provisions of the
\nAct and\t the Rules  specify the\t maximum weight\t of axle and
\ntyres and  the required\t weightage to  be mentioned  in\t the
\nCertificate  of\t  Registration\tin   Form  20,\t 21  and  22
\nconformably to\tRule  47.  Equal  are  the  provisions\twith
\nrespect to the tyres which need no reiteration.\n<\/p>\n
     In this behalf, the power of the Central Government has
\nbeen crystallized in Section 58 of the Act. Section 58 reads
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
     “58. Special  provisions in  regard
\n     to transport  vehicles. –\t(1)  The
\n     Central  Government   may,\t  having
\n     regard to\tthe number,  nature  and
\n     size of  the tyres\t attached to the
\n     wheels  of\t  a  transport\tvehicle,
\n     (other than  a motor  cab), and its
\n     make and  model and  other relevant
\n     considerations, by\t notification in
\n     the Official  Gazette, specify,  in
\n     relation to  each make and model of
\n     a transport  vehicle,  the\t maximum
\n     [gross  vehicle]\tweight\tof  such
\n     vehicle and  the maximum  safe axle
\n     weight  of\t  each\taxle   of   such
\n     vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) A  registering authority,  when
\n     registering  a  transport\tvehicle,
\n     other than\t a motor cab shall enter
\n     in the  record of\tregistration and
\n     shall also enter in the certificate
\n     of registration  of the vehicle the
\n     following particulars, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  the\tunladen\t weight\t of  the
\n     vehicle;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b) the  number, nature and size of
\n     the tyres attached to each wheel;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c) the gross vehicle weight of the
\n     vehicle  and  the\tregistered  axle
\n     weights pertaining\t to the\t several
\n     axle thereof; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (d)  if  the  vehicle  is\tused  or
\n     adapted to be used for the carriage
\n     of passengers solely or in addition
\n     to goods,\tthe number of passengers
\n     for whom accommodation is provided,
\n     and the  owner of the vehicle shall
\n     have the same particulars exhibited
\n     in the  prescribed\t manner\t on  the
\n     vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3) There\tshall not  be entered in
\n     the certificate  of registration of
\n     any such  vehicle any gross vehicle
\n     weight on\ta registered axle weight
\n     of any  of the  axle different from
\n     that specified  in the notification
\n     under sub-section\t(1) in\trelation
\n     to\t the  make  and\t model\tof  such
\n     vehicle and  to the  number, nature
\n     and size  of the  tyres attached to
\n     its wheels:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (4)   When\t  by   reason\tof   any
\n     alteration\t  in\tsuch\tvehicle,
\n     including\tan   alteration\t in  the
\n     number,  nature   or  size\t of  its
\n     tyres, the\t gross vehicle weight of
\n     the vehicle  or the registered axle
\n     weight  of\t any  of  its  axles  no
\n     longer accords  with the provisions
\n     of sub-section  (3), the provisions
\n     of Section\t 52 shall  apply and the
\n     registering authority  shall  enter
\n     in the  certificate of registration
\n     of the  vehicle revised  registered
\n     weights which  accord with the said
\n     sub-section.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A reading\tthereof\t would\tclearly\t indicate  that\t the
\nCentral Government  may, having regard to the number, nature
\nand size  of the tyres attached to the wheels of a transport
\nvehicle\t and   its  make   and\tmodel\tand  other  relevant
\nconsiderations, by  notification in  the  Official  Gazette,
\nspecify, in  relation to  each make and model of a transport
\nvehicle, the  maximum gross  vehicle weight  of such vehicle
\nand the\t maximum safe  axle weight  of\teach  axle  of\tsuch
\nvehicle.  When\t the  Registering   Authority  registers   a
\ntransport  vehicle   it\t should\t  enter\t in  the  record  of
\nregistration  and   also  enter\t  in  the   certificate\t  of
\nregistration of\t the vehicle,  the  unladen  weight  of\t the
\nvehicle the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to
\neach wheel;  the maximum gross vehicle weight of the vehicle
\nand the\t registered axle  weights pertaining  to the vehicle
\naxles thereof.\tWhen by\t reason of  any alteration  in\tsuch
\nvehicle including the alteration in the number, nature, size
\nof tyres,  the gross  vehicle weight  of the  vehicle or the
\nregistered axle weight of any of its axles no longer accords
\nwith the  provisions of\t sub-section (3),  the provisions of
\nSection 52  shall apply and the Registering Authority has no
\nenter in  the certificate  of registration  of the  vehicle,
\nrevised registered weights which should accord with the said
\nsub-section. The  scheme of  the Act  and  the\tRules  would
\nprovide an  in built  procedure under  the Act\tto  maintain
\nconstruction, equipment and maintenance of the motor vehicle
\nas regards  its maximum\t gross vehicle\tweight, maximum safe
\naxle weight,  the nature and size of the tyres fitted to the
\nvehicle and  also the  maximum safe axle weight of each axle
\nof the vehicle as entered in the certificate of registration
\nor revised, it there occurred change in the weight.\n<\/p>\n
     The question,  therefore, is  whether the Government in
\nexercising its\tpower under  Section 58(1)  of the  Act\t has
\nabdicated its  power  in  favour  of  the  manufacturers  as
\ncontended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the\tparties?  On
\nconsideration of  the scheme  of the  Act and the purpose it
\nseeks to serve, namely, roadworthiness and the safety of the
\nvehicle and  also the safety of the transport, we think that
\nthe Government has not abdicated its power in exercising its
\npower under  section 58(1)  of the  Act by  issuance of\t the
\nnotification dated  October 18, 1996. It is seen that in the
\nnotification the  Government specified\tthat in\t relation to
\nthe transport  vehicles (other\tthan motor  cabs) of various
\ncategories detailed  in\t the  Schedule,\t the  maximum  gross
\nvehicles weight\t and the  maximum safe\taxle weight  of each
\naxle of\t such vehicle  shall, having  regard  to  the  size,
\nnature and  number  of\tthe  tyres  of\tthe  maximum  weight
\npermitted to be carried by the tyres as specified in Rule 95
\nof the Rules which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “(1) Vehicle  manufacturers  rating
\n     of the  gross  vehicle  weight  and
\n     axle weight  respectively for  each
\n     make and model as duly certified by
\n     the testing agencies for compliance
\n     of rule  126 of  the Central  Motor
\n     Vehicles Rules, 1989, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)  the\t maximum  gross\t vehicle
\n     weight and\t the maximum  safe  axle
\n     weight of each vehicle respectively
\n     as specified  in the Schedule below
\n     for the relevant category, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) the maximum load permitted to
\n     be\t carried   by  the   tire(s)  as
\n     specified in  the rule  95\t of  the
\n     Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
\n     for the  size  and\t number\t of  the
\n     tyres fitted  on the axle(s) of the
\n     relevant make  and model, whichever
\n     is less:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided  that  the  maximum  gross
\n     vehicle weight  in respect\t of  all
\n     such transport  vehicles, including
\n     multi-axle vehicles  shall\t not  be
\n     more than\tthe sum total of all the
\n     maximum  safe   axle   weight   put
\n     together\t  subject     to     the
\n     restrictions,  if\t any,\ton   the
\n     maximum gross  vehicle weight given
\n     in the said Schedule.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  seen that  Schedule has  been attached  to\tthis
\nnotification  in   which  they\t have  mentioned  the  rigid
\nvehicles, semi-articulated  vehicles as\t enumerated therein,
\nthe details  of which  are redundant  to be extracted in the
\njudgment, but  they become  part of the judgment. It is true
\nthat clause  (1) by itself indicates and gives an impression
\nthat the  Central Government had abdicated its discretion in
\nfavour of  the manufacturer,  of rating\t the  gross  vehicle
\nweight and  the axle  weight respectively.  But it  must  be
\nunderstood in the light of the explanatory note added by the
\nGovernment which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “The  notification\t  specifies  the
\n     maximum Gross  Vehicle  Weight  and
\n     maximum  Safety   Axle  Weight  for
\n     various  categories   of  transport
\n     vehicles. It  is  not  possible  to
\n     specify  this  for\t each  make  and
\n     model because  of\tthe  very  large
\n     number of\tmodels\tmanufactured  by
\n     different\tmanufacturers.\t Further
\n     with   the\t   rapid   technological
\n     advancements  in\tthe   automobile
\n     industry new models are being added
\n     regularly\t and   there   will   be
\n     practical difficulties  and days in
\n     the notification  of  these  models
\n     ……….their\t\t  market
\n     introduction. However,  this aspect
\n     has  been\ttaken  care  of\t by  the
\n     requirement of  certification to be
\n     issued  by\t the  nominated\t testing
\n     agencies under  CMVR for  each make
\n     and  model\t of  transport\tvehicles
\n     Further  the   schedule   in   this
\n     notification  covers   the\t various
\n     categories of  vehicles,  currently
\n     manufactured  in  the  country  and
\n     thus includes  each make  and model
\n     of transport vehicle.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The notification  ensures that  the
\n     maximum Gross  Vehicle  Weight  and
\n     the maximum  safe axle  weight  for
\n     registration are in accordance with
\n     the stipulation  of the  Government
\n     from the point of view of roads and
\n     bridges. Further,\tit ensures  that
\n     the maximum weights permitted to be
\n     carried by the tire are as per rule
\n     95 CMVR.  Additionally  it\t ensures
\n     that  the\t vehicle  manufacturers’
\n     ratings are  never exceeded as this
\n     is fundamental  for the  safety and
\n     satisfactory   operation\tof   the
\n     transport vehicle.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The schedule  in  the  notification
\n     specifies the maximum gross vehicle
\n     weight and\t safe axle  weight. Tyre
\n     sizes are\tnot  recommended  to  be
\n     included in  this schedule\t because
\n     manufacturers have\t to  choose  the
\n     appropriate  size\t and  number  of
\n     tyres from design considerations to
\n     meet various  requirements such  as
\n     durability, ground\t clearance, ride
\n     and handling, braking and steering,
\n     road conditions, standardisation of
\n     tyres on all the axles etc.
\n     A reading\tof it  would  indicate\tthat  due  to  rapid
\ntechnology and\tchange in  the manufacture of the automobile
\nvehicle by  the industry, several new models are being added
\nregularly; it is practically difficult for the Government to
\nspecify on  day-to-day the  maximum vehicle  weight  or\t the
\nmaximum\t  axle\t weight\t  which\t  would\t  cause\t  delay\t  in
\nimplementation thereof.\t Therefore, the\t Government,  having
\nregard to  the changing\t manufacturing pattern\tand changing
\nsituation, have\t decided that the manufacturer specifies the
\nmaximum\t gross\tvehicle\t weight\t and  the  axle\t weight.  It
\nnecessarily requires  to be  decided by the testing agencies
\nspecified in Rule 126 and they should act in conformity with
\nthe provisions\tof the\tAct and the Rules and should certify
\naccordingly. When  they so  do, it  in effect  amounts to  a
\ndirection by  the Central  Government to  the authorities to
\ncomply with  the provisions  of\t the  Act.  Thereby,  before
\nregistration of\t the vehicle,  after the construction of the
\nmotor vehicle  with equipment  as mentioned  in the  Act the
\nRegistering Authority shall be required to verify whether it
\nis in  conformity with\tthe provisions of the Act, Rules and
\nthe  notification.   One  that\tis  done,  the\tquestion  of
\ndiscrimination\tor   arbitrariness  on\t the  part   of\t the
\nRegistering Authority  does not\t arise. Rule  126-A  of\t the
\nRules came  into force\twith effect  from December 30, 1993.
\nTherefore, any\tvehicle registered  prior to  the said\tdate
\nshould conform\twith the  specifications mentioned  in\titem\n<\/p>\n
(ii) of\t the notification read with the Schedule attached to
\nRule 95\t of the Rules. Subsequent thereto, they all required
\nto comply with the law as enumerated hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
     Next contention is as to para (ii) of the notification.
\nThere is  no quarrel  across the  Bar as regards clause (ii)
\nthereof because\t it specified  maximum gross  vehicle weight
\nand  the   maximum  safe   axle\t weight\t  of  each   vehicle
\nrespectively as\t specified in  the Schedule  to the relevant
\ncategories enumerated hereinbefore. A serious contention was
\nraised with regard to clause (iii) of the notification which
\nsays that  the maximum\tload permitted\tto be carried by the
\ntyre(s) as  specified in  Rule 95 for the size and number of
\nthe tyres  fitted on  the axle(s)  of the  relevant make and
\nmodel would  be “whichever  is less”  among  all  the  three
\nclauses.  In   this  behalf   it  is   contended  that\tsome
\nmanufacturers have  given the  maximum vehicle\tweight of 22
\ntonnes while  Schedule I prescribes 25 tonnes as the maximum
\ngross vehicle  weight in  respect of  rigid vehicle having 3
\naxle, two tyres on front axle and eight tyres on rear tandem
\naxle and the maximum safe axle weight is six tonnes on front
\naxle and  19 tones  on rear  tandem axle.  This would create
\nincompatibility\t for  non-registration\tby  the\t registering
\nauthorities and, therefore, it is not in conformity with the
\nAct. We\t find no  force in  the contention.  It is seen that
\neach manufacturer  is required\tto conform to the provisions
\nof the\tAct, Rules  and the  specifications mentioned by the
\nGovernment in  that behalf.  The manufacturers send them for
\ntesting to  the appropriate  authority specified in Rule 126
\nof the\tRules. When so tested what is specified in the Rules
\nis the\tmaximum; but  it does  not mean that it should be in
\nexcess of  it. It  may be  less. It  is seen  that the Rules
\nindicate the minimum of weightage. Take for instance, if the
\nmaximum axle  weight is 100 tones and weightage of the tyres
\nfitted to  it is  106 tones, it does not mean that the owner
\nhas the right to fit his tyres in excess of the maximum safe
\naxle weight  given and\tregistered in  the vehicle. In other
\nwords, in  an appropriate  case the maximum safe axle weight
\nand the maximum vehicle weight should always be conformable;
\nthough in  respect of  tyres fitted  into the  vehicles, the
\nweight is  variable. It\t should\t always\t be  less  than\t the
\nmaximum of the safe axle weight mentioned in the certificate
\nof registration. The words “whichever is less” require to be
\nunderstood in  that sense.  Note II  of Rule  95  should  be
\nunderstood in  this perspective.  If such  a construction is
\nadopted, in  fairness, Shri  Sudhir Chandra,  learned senior
\ncounsel, has  stated that there may not be any impediment in
\nthe enforcement\t of the provisions of the Act. We agree with
\nthe learned  counsel in\t that behalf.  The maximum safe axle
\nweight would  always be the criteria and the maximum vehicle
\nweight should  normally be  in conformity with the safe axle
\nweight so that the roadworthiness of the vehicle, the safety
\nof the\tvehicle and  also the  safety of the carriage of the
\ngoods would  always remains  without  creating\tany  traffic
\nhazards. The  driver would carry the good without any hiatus
\nin the\tcarriage of  the goods.\t Thus we  consider that\t the
\nGovernment have\t not abdicated\tits controlling\t power under
\nsection 58(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Shri Rajiv\t Dhawan, learned  senior counsel, has placed
\nreliance on  a passage\tof Administrative Law by H.W.R. Wade
\n(Seventh Edition) at page 358 which reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Closely akin  to\tdelegation,  and
\n     scarcely distinguishable from it in
\n     some cases,  is any  arrangement by
\n     which a  power conferred  upon  the
\n     authority is in substance exercised
\n     by another.  The  proper  authority
\n     may share\tits power  with some one
\n     else, or may allow some one else to
\n     dictate to\t it by\tdeclining to act
\n     without   their   consent\t or   by
\n     submitting\t to   their  wishes   or
\n     instructions. The\teffect\tthen  is
\n     that the  discretion  conferred  by
\n     Parliament is  exercised, at  least
\n     in part,  by the  wrong  authority,
\n     and the resulting decision is ultra
\n     vires and\tvoid. So  strict are the
\n     courts in\tapplying this  principle
\n     that     they\tcondemn\t    some
\n     administrative  arrangements  which
\n     must seem\tquite natural and proper
\n     to those  who make\t them.\tIn  this
\n     class might be included the case of
\n     the  cinema   licensing   authority
\n     which, by\trequiring  films  to  be
\n     approved by  the British  Board  of
\n     Film  Censors,  was  held\tto  have
\n     surrendered its  power  of\t control
\n     and also  the case\t of  the  Police
\n     Complaints Board, which acted as if
\n     it were  bound by a decision of the
\n     Director  of   Public  Prosecutions
\n     when only required to `have regard’
\n     to\t it.   This  doctrine  has  been
\n     applied   to    voting   by   local
\n     councillors.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ministers\tand   their  departments
\n     have several  times fallen\t foul of
\n     the same  rule, no doubt equally to
\n     their  surprise.  The  Minister  of
\n     Housing and  Local Government  made
\n     it\t a   rule  to\trefuse\tplanning
\n     permissions for  gravel working  on
\n     top-class\t   agricultural\t    land
\n     whenever\tthe    application   was
\n     opposed   by    the   Minister   of
\n     Agriculture. The  court  held  that
\n     this was  to put the decisive power
\n     into  the\t hands\tof   the   wrong
\n     minister and  that\t a  decision  so
\n     taken must\t be  quashed.  Similarly
\n     the     court     invalidated     a
\n     reinstatement  order   made   under
\n     wartime  labour  regulations  by  a
\n     national service  officer, who  was
\n     empowered to  direct  reinstatement
\n     of\t   workers     dismissed     for
\n     misconduct.  For  the  officer  was
\n     acting under  directions  from  the
\n     minister,\t whereas    he\t was   a
\n     statutory\tauthority   in\this  own
\n     right and should have exercised his
\n     personal discretion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  seen from  the above  passage  that\t the  proper
\nauthority who  has been empowered to exercise the power, has
\nabdicated its power in its exercise of the discretion vested
\nby the\tParliament in its administrative actions. The author
\nhas stated  that the  Parliament having given the discretion
\nto the\tauthorities, they  cannot abdicate  its power to the
\nofficers to  exercise that power. Similar is the case of the
\nBritish Censor\tBoard etc.  It is seen that the said passage
\nis inapplicable\t to  the  facts\t of  this  case.  As  stated
\nearlier, the  Act itself  regulates the\t manner in which the
\nvehicles  are\tto  be\t constructed,  equipped\t fitted\t and
\nmaintained and\tvarious indicia have been prescribed in that
\nbehalf. The  manufacturer is  required\tto  conform  to\t the
\nspecifications. As  stated earlier,  Rule 95  of  the  Rules
\nspecifies the  size of\tthe  tyres  of\tthe  motor  vehicles
\nspecified in  Column 1\tof the Schedule. Rating is specified
\nin the corresponding entry in column (2) of the Schedule and
\nthe maximum  weight permitted to be carried by such tyres is
\nspecified in  column 3.\t The relevant  columns specify\teach
\ntype of tyres.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true that  Note (ii)  of the  notification which
\ngives the  above maximum  weightage in\trespect of  tyres of
\ntransport vehicle  goods, shall be applicable subject to the
\nconditions that\t the axle  load does  not exceed  6% of\t the
\npermitted limit.  They apply  in relation  to the registered
\naxle weight  recorded in  the certificate of registration of
\nthe vehicle.  As stated\t earlier, this\tis only\t to indicate
\nthat the  axle load should not exceed 6% or it should always
\nbe above  the safe  axle load  specified in  the  Rules.  As
\nstated earlier,\t the safe  axle load  would  always  be\t the
\ndetermining factor  since roadworthiness  and  safety  would
\nhinge upon  the axle  load vis-a-vis the tyres fitted to the
\naxles as specified in the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     This it  could be seen that the Central Government have
\nnot  abdicated\t their\tpower  of  control  and\t prescribing
\nspecification under  Section 58\t of the\t Act  nor  it  is  a
\ndelegation of  the manufacturer.  Therefore, we\t do not find
\nany illegality\tin  the\t order\tpassed\tby  the\t High  Court
\nwarranting interference.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeals  and  the  writ  petition  are\t accordingly
\ndismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati PETITIONER: N. VENKATESWARA RAO & ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: S.T.A & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/11\/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH C.A. NOS. 15713-15918\/93 [@ SLP […]<\/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-98187","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nN. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 - 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\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-04T04:43:25+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\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T04:43:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4710,\"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\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\",\"name\":\"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-04T04:43:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 - 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\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-04T04:43:25+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\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996","datePublished":"1996-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T04:43:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996"},"wordCount":4710,"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\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996","name":"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-04T04:43:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-venkateswara-rao-ors-etc-vs-s-t-a-ors-etc-on-21-november-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N. Venkateswara Rao & Ors. Etc vs S.T.A & Ors. Etc on 21 November, 1996"}]},{"@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\/98187","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=98187"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98187\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98187"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98187"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98187"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}