STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RANGANATHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of 374 appeals by certificate is from the decision of the High court of Karnataka given in 374 Writ Petition filed by different persons having various kinds of interest in the Contract Carriages which were taken over by the State of Karnataka first by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976) (for brevity, hereinafter, the Ordinance) followed by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The judgment of the High court is reported in K. Jayaraj Ballal v. State of Karnataka For the sake of convenience hereinafter in this judgment, reference to the High court judgment wherever necessary will be made from the said report.

(2.) The broad and the common facts of the various cases are in a narrow compass and not in dispute. At the outset, we shall state them mostly from the High court judgment. We were not concerned to go into the special facts of some cases in these appeals. They may have to be looked into, if necessary, by the High court in the light of this judgment. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) was established by the State government of Karnataka on 1/08/1961 under S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950). The Corporation was a party respondent to the Writ Petition and is an appellant before us alongwith the State of Karnataka, We are staling the facts mostly from Civil No. 1085 of 1976 arising out of Writ Petition No. 817 of 1976. The Corporation published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 16/05/1974, a draft scheme for nationalisation of Contract Carriages in the State under Ch. IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939). Objections were invited. Some of the writ petitioners preferred their objections. It appears the State government and the Corporation dropped the idea of proceeding with the scheme and without concluding the hearing and the disposal of the objections and the finalization of their scheme the government came out with the Ordinance which was promulgated on 30/01/1976. As per Clause 1 (3) of theordinance, it applied to "all contract carriage (s) operating in the State of Karnataka". By a number of notifications issued under the Ordinance almost all the contract carriages and the permits specified in the notifica' tions vested in the State. They were transferred to the Corporation under Clause 20 (1) of the Ordinance. The officers of the Corporation seized the vehicles and the relative permits pursuant to the notifications aforesaid except six vehicles which were operating under Inter-State permits belonging to some of the writ petitioners. ' The seizure of the said six vehicles was stayed by the Order of the High court made on 5/04/1976 in some of the earlier Writ Petition. The earlier Writ Petition were decided on 26/02/1976 and 3/03/1976 by a learned single Judge of the High court who held that the Ordinance did not empower the acquisition of the vehicles not covered by valid contract permits and consequently quashed some of the notifications. The Ordinance with some changes was replaced by the Act which received the assent of the President on 11/03/1976 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated the 12/03/1976. The operation of the Act was, however, made retrospective from 30/01/1976 the day when the Ordinance had been promulgated and come into force. The Ordinance was repealed by S. 31 of the Act and the saving clause in Ss. (2) says:

(3.) The High court has allowed all the Writ Petition, struck down the Act as unconstitutional and has declared it null and void. The notifications have been quashed. The respondents in the Writ Petition, namely the appellants before us, were directed to restore the vehicles with the relative permits and all other assets to the operators from whom they were taken over. Some consequential directives for determination of damages in some later proceedings were also given.