SUDHAKAR S. PANGOL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In each of these three petitions, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Sales Tax on the Transfer of Property in Goods involved in the Execution of Works Contract (Re-enacted) Act, 1989 (for short "the Works Contract Act, 1989") and pray for a declaration that the Works Contract Act, 1989 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) as well as Article 246(2) read with Entry No. 54 List II in Seventh Schedule read with Article 366 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the grounds of challenge in all the three petitions are common. He took us through the facts stated in Writ Petition No. 496 of 1990 and submitted that decision on that petition would also be applicable to the other two petitions.

(3.) Mr. Anturkar in fairness invited our attention to a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 485 of 1990 (Builders Association of India v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., decided on 25th August 1994 Coram: Pendse, J.), wherein the constitutional validity of the Works Contract Act, 1989 was upheld by this Court. He however submitted that the grounds of challenge to the constitutional validity of the Works Contract Act, 1989 raised in this petition were not raised before the Court in that petition and, therefore, this Court can again go into the question of constitutional validity independent of that decision. He further submitted that in any event the points raised in these petitions are not covered by the previous decision and, therefore, the points raised herein would be required to be considered independently by this Court. We are afraid this is not permissible. A decision of a Court in a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of a statute, if not akin to a judgment in relm, would certainly amount to a stare decisis. The challenge to the constitutional validity may be on a different ground or grounds or in addition to the grounds raised in the earlier petition would not ordinarily be permissible before the same Court. The same Court cannot be moved again and again by one and other petitioners challenging the issue of constitutional validity of the same statute on different grounds. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that no grounds exist to declare the Works Contract Act, 1989 to be constitutionally invalid for the reasons indicated below.