GIRISH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) these writ petitions have been referred to the full bench by the division bench consisting of shivashankar bhat and ramakrishna, jj., by invoking the power under Section 10(v) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by their order dated 30-6-1992, or consideration. Hence, they have been taken up for consideration by this full bench.

(2.) the legal contention urged in support of the writ petitions is that the decision rendered by a division bench of this court in rajamallaiah v state of karnataka, requires to be reconsidered in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in (1) M/s. Dwarkadas marfatia and sons v board of trustees of the port of Bombay, (2) mahabir auto stores and others v Indian oil corporation and others, (3) kumari shrilekha vidyarthi etc., etc. V state of U.P. and others and observations made by another division bench of this court in state of Karnataka v k.m. shankaran.

(3.) learned counsel for some of the petitioners have put forward the following propositions of law to be considered in view of the recent trend and the judicial pronouncements after rajamallaiah's case: (a) the State Action in whatever form must be fair and reasonable. That is to say, whatever may be the nature of the State Action whether it is in the nature of contractual transaction or otherwise, it must be decided in the light of article 14 of the constitution. (b) fairness is a principle inherent in article 14 and therefore all contractual and other transactions of the government must be tested in the light of chapter iii of the constitution. (c) the courts can interfere in an arbitrary action of the state at any stage of the contract to which the state is a party, as the principle of 'waiver on estoppel' cannot prevent a person from enforcing his fundamental rights under chapter iii of the constitution. (d) unjust enrichment is a Rule of equity. Equity is inherent in article 14 and therefore unjust enrichment on the part of the state directly contravenes article 14. (e) the nature of trade of all the petitioners does not affect their rights under chapter-ill of the constitution, and (f) the decision in rajamallaiah's case is required to be distinguished having regard to the subsequent pronouncements of the Supreme Court including the latest one in kumari Srilekha Vidyarthi's case.