STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 30th August, 1958 of the District Judge, Jodhpur restraining the defendant State not to recover any amount from plaintiff Mohanlal under the monopoly agreements for plying the plaintiff's buses for a period commencing from 26th January, 1950 to 31st March, 1951, on (i) Nagaur-Role-Deh and (ii) Kuchera-Khajwana routes in the area of the erstwhile Jodhpur State.

(2.) THE facts of this case are not in dispute and they are as follows : In 1948 the Government of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur issued a tender notice for granting monopoly rights to run motor transport services for passengers and goods on Nagaur-Role-Deh and Kuchera-Khajwana routes in the State. In pursuance of the said notice, plaintiff Mohanlal submitted his tender and the Govt. of Jodhpur State accepted the same, and by virtue of two agreements dated 8. 11. 1948 and 1st Dec. 1948 entered into between the State Government and plaintiff Mohan Lal, the monopoly rights were conferred on the plaintiff to run his vehicles for passenger and goods transport on the routes mentioned therein. THE monopoly for Nagaur-Role-Deh routes was for three years from December 1, 1948 to November, 30, 1951, and the plaintiff was to pay to the State Rs. 72,121/- for that route. As regards Kuchera-Khajwana route, the monopoly rights were given for three years and five months, that is from July, 1, 1948 to November, 30, 1951 on payment of Rs. 41,121/ -. It is alleged that the plaintiff had paid the amount of Rs. 51,000/- to the defendant State for the period upto January, 26, 1960, but according to the calculation of the plaintiff an over-payment was made by him to the tune of Rs. 1,346/ -. He has, however, relinquished his claim for the repayment of this amount of Rs. 1,346/ -. THE plaintiff's case was that after 7th April, 1949, the State of Jodhpur merged in the present State of Rajasthan and thereafter the Constitution came into force from January 26, 1950, guaranteeing certain fundamental rights to the citizens of India. According to the plaintiff, the monopoly contracts entered into between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-appellant became frustrated and therefore void by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution and, therefore under the terms of the said contracts the successor State, that is, the State of Rajasthan could not realise the suit amount for plying his buses and trucks on the said routes for the period in question, that is, from the 26th January, 1950 to the 31st March, 1951. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant State issued a demand notice for Rs. 69,932. 4. 0 requiring the plaintiff to pay the said amount for plying his vehicles on the aforesaid two routes between 26th January, 1950 and 31st March, 1951, but this demand, according to the plaintiff, was illegal and could not, therefore, be realised by the defendant State from the plaintiff. With these allegations, the plaint was filed by the plaintiff in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur on 5th December, 1955 with a prayer that the defendant, its servants and agents be restrained by an injunction to recover a sum of Rs. 69,932. 4. 0 stated to be outstanding on account of the plying of his vehicles on the aforesaid routes for the period after 26th January, 1950 through the Public Demands Recovery Act or by any other means, and it may also be declared that the defendant State was not entitled to recover any money from the plaintiff for the period commencing from 26th January, 1950 to 1st April, 1951.

(3.) WE now turn to the contentions raised by Mr. Desai appearing for the plaintiff-respondent. His main contention is that after the Constitution came into force the impugned contracts creating monopoly rights in favour of the plaintiff became void by virtue of Arts. 13 and 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution and as such the contracts became frustrated from 26th January, 1950 when the Constitution came into force in the country and thereafter no right is left with the State Government to realise any amount under the contract from the plaintiff for plying his buses or trucks on the aforesaid route or routes. His argument is that after the Constitution came into force the plaintiff plied his buses on the route or routes in pursuance of his fundamental right to carry on the trade of plying buses on the highway which was guaranteed by the Constitution and not by virtue of the terms of the contracts; and therefore the State Government had no right to realise any money under the contracts.