SMST TRANSPORT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions involve common questions. For the sake of convenience reference will be made to the facts in W.P. No. 7693/2011 filed by SMST Transport and others, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant the following reliefs:

(2.) Sriyuths K.N. Phanindra and M.M. Swamy, learned advocates for the other writ petitioners, adopted the arguments advanced by Sri D.L.N. Rao.

(3.) Sri H. Kantharaja, learned Addl. Advocate General, on the other hand referred to Sub-Section (3-A) of S. 19A of the Act, as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 31 of 2010 and contended that there is legislative sanction and competence for the State Government to issue the impugned Government order. He submitted that the toll levied in the cases are not 'fee' to which principles of quid pro quo apply and the levy in the instant cases, which is imposed by an Act of the Legislature, is alien to the concept of quid pro quo. He supported the Government Order and the Corrigendum impugned in these writ petitions. He took me through the statement of objections and the additional counter filed and sought dismissal of the writ petitions.