In g.t. venkataswamy reddy v. state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench, the Supreme Court of India ruled on motor vehicles regulation, stage carriage permits, and inter-state transport schemes, clarifying statutory compliance for transport authorities[cite: 1].
Bench Strength and Judicial Panel
The bench composition for g.t. venkataswamy reddy v. state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 bench strength comprised five honorable judges[cite: 1]:
- Chief Justice T.S. Thakur[cite: 1]
- Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla[cite: 1]
- Justice S.A. Bobde[cite: 1]
- Justice R. Banumathi[cite: 1]
- Justice Uday Umesh Lalit[cite: 1]
This panel evaluated "g.t. venkataswamy reddy" "civil appeal no. 4480 of 1998" along with connected matters including "g.t. venkataswamy reddy" "civil appeal" 4481/1998[cite: 1]. The judicial review focused on resolving administrative conflicts surrounding stage carriage permit renewals and the legal reach of state transport authorities in g.t. venkataswamy reddy v state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench[cite: 1].
Key Rulings and Statutory Principles
The decision in g.t. venkataswamy reddy v. state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 sets essential guidelines for transport operators and state bodies[cite: 1]:
State transport authorities must exercise their statutory powers strictly within the scope of published inter-state schemes and relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act[cite: 1].
Evaluating g.t. venkataswamy reddy v state transport authority 2016 8 scc 402 constitution bench reveals how variations of permits must be tested against statutory provisions[cite: 1]. For related judicial precedents on public administrative compliance and municipal duties, see Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation[cite: 1]. Additionally, criminal and procedure rulings such as Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab illustrate the court’s approach across distinct statutory frameworks[cite: 1]. Principles governing public development authorities were also addressed in Greater Noida Ind. Dev. Authority Vs. Savitri Mohan and State of Bihar Vs. Rajballav Prasad.
Case Summary Matrix
| Case Parameter | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | g.t. venkataswamy reddy v state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench five judge[cite: 1] |
| Alternative Citation | air 2016 sc 3469 g.t. venkataswamy reddy[cite: 1] |
| Bench Composition | g.t. venkataswamy reddy v. state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench five judges[cite: 1] |
| Primary Question | Is g.t. venkataswamy reddy v state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench? Yes, heard by a 5-judge bench[cite: 1]. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Was this appeal heard by a full Constitution Bench?
Yes, as reflected in g.t. venkataswamy reddy v state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench five judges, the case was deliberated by a 5-judge bench to ensure constitutional uniformity in transport regulation[cite: 1]. Practitioners reviewing g.t. venkataswamy reddy v state transport authority 2016 8 scc 402 pdf details will note that a permit variation cannot be treated as a mere administrative formality[cite: 1].
Where can I cite this Supreme Court judgment?
You can cite the matter using g.t. venkataswamy reddy v. state transport authority (2016) 8 scc 402 constitution bench five judges or via air 2016 sc 3469 g.t. venkataswamy reddy[cite: 1].