1970 INSC 0136
                                                The State of Mysore

                                                           Vs

                                              Alexander Misquith, etc.

                                      Civil Appeal Nos. 1724-1726 of 1966

                                            (J. C. Shah, K. S. Hegde JJ)

                                                      08.04.1970

                                                     JUDGMENT

HEGDE, J. -

1. These appeals by special leave brought by the State of Mysore raise a common question of
law. That question is whether the 1st proviso to Section 3 of Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of
Passengers and Goods) Act XVI of 1952, is valid. The High Court and the Courts below following
certain earlier decisions of the High Courts of Mysore, Madras and Andhra Pradesh have held that
proviso is invalid and consequently the passenger transport operators who have been compelled to
pay tax under Section 3 of the aforementioned Act are entitled to the refund of the tax paid by them.

2. The respondents in these appeals were passenger transport operators plying their buses in the
District of South Kanara which district till November 1, 1956, was a part of the former State of
Madras and thereafter became a part of the new State of Mysore. The State Legislature of Madras
enacted Madras Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passangers and Goods) Act XVI of 1952 and on the
strength of the provisions of that Act levied and collected certain taxes from the operators.
Thereafter the operators sued the State of Madras for refund of those taxes. After re-organization of
the State in 1956, the State of Mysore was substituted for the State of Madras. As mentioned earlier
the High Court as well as the Courts below have upheld the claims of the operators.

3. The question of law raised in these appeals has become academic, the impugned provisions being
no more in operation. They claims involved in these appeals are by no means substantial. They
range between Rs. 852.25 P. and Rs. 2652.37 P. Hence we do not think that these are fit cases in
which this Court should exercise its special and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution. For that reason we decline to go into the merits of the contentions advanced in these
cases.

4. In the result these appeals failed and they are dismissed. The respondents are exparte in these
appeals; there will be no order as to costs in these appeals.

</html