9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o 405 of 1984. K.L. Sharma, and S.L. Benadikar, Senior Advocates (M. Veerappa and Ashok Kumar, Advocates, with them), for the respondents in W.P. Nos. 394 to 405 of 1984. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by KHALID J.--The above appeals, by special leave, are directed against the common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 662 to 668 of 1982. In the writ petitions, the prayer is to strike down s. 7 of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1982, ss. 2 and 3 of Karnataka Act No. 10 of 1984 and for a writ of mandamus to restrain the State of Karnataka from enforcing the said provisions against the petitioners in the writ petitions. This judgment will dispose of the appeals and the writ petitions. The facts, in brief, necessary to understand the genesis of the cases are as follows: Consequent upon the abolition of octroi by the State of Karnataka, which was the main source of revenue for the local bodies, the said State enacted the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1979 (for short " the 1979 Act "), in order to augment the resources of the local bodies. This Act came into ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e No. 11 of 1980. As a result of the combined operation of Ordinance No. 3 of 1981 and Act No. 12 of 198 1, the 1979 Act was made to be, operative but only from October 1, 1980, and not from June 1, 1979, as originally enacted. After the judgment of this court in the Hansa Corporation case upholding the validity of the 1979 Act, the authorities appointed under the Act issued notices under the Act to all the dealers including those who had filed writ petitions earlier, calling upon them to register themselves under the Act, to file returns and to pay the amounts of tax due by them under the original Act of 1979. Aggrieved by the said notices, the original writ petitioners again filed writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka contending that the notices issued to them were bad inasmuch as the writ of mandamus issued in their favour by the High Court in the earlier judgment survived and was effective since the State had not filed appeals against them, and that the judgment of this court could rescue the State from taking proceedings only against the Hansa Corporation and not against them. The State met this contention with the plea that the judgment of this court was binding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jection was raised on his behalf that the appeal was incompetent since the State had not filed appeals against the three other petitioners and that, therefore, any variation by this court of the judgment in the appeal would result in inconsistent decisions in respect of the same matter. In Makhanlal's case [1971] 3 SCR 832; AIR 1971 SC 2206, an order made by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir providing for reservation of posts for certain communities was challenged before this court as violative of art. 16 of the Constitution. This court accepted the challenge and invalidated the promotions of respondents Nos. 3 to 83 in that case. By its judgment, this court directed the State Government to device scheme consistent with the constitutional guarantee for reservation of appointment to posts and to pass appropriate orders, The State Government instead of complying with the directions given by this court, attempted to circumvent the same by continuing those whose promotions were invalidated, giving the posts a different name. The same petitioners again moved this court under art. 32 of the Constitution questioning the action of the State Government. The State Government justified its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enunciation in Makhanlal Waza's case [1971] 3 SCR 832; AIR 1971 SC 2206 was made by the Supreme Court in the context of a binding order made against Government and not against those who were not parties to its earlier order and, therefore, the principles stated in that case has no application to the question that arises for determination. In my view, the attempt made by Shri Srinivasan to distinguish the enunciation made in Makhanlal Waza's case [1971] 3 SCR 832; AIR 1971 SC 2206 is without a difference and has no merit at all. The enunciation made is not based on any such distinction and difference. On the application of the principles enunciated in Makhanlal Waza's case, it follows that the declaration made by the Supreme Court in Hansa Corporation's case [1980] ILR 1 Kar 165 upholding the validity of the Act is binding on all courts, authorities and persons in the State of Karnataka notwithstanding the fact that the State had filed only one appeal and had not filed appeals in the other cases ........" From the above discussion, it would appear that the learned single judge felt that Joginder Singh's case [1963]12 Suppl SCR 169; AIR 1963 SC 913 indicated a different view. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 169 ; AIR 1963 SC 913, 916, was relied upon : " All the four petitions were dealt with together and were disposed of by a common judgment so that relief accorded to Joginder Singh, the respondent before us, in Writ Application No. 1559 of 1960 was also granted to the other three petitioners. The State, however, has preferred no appeal against the orders in the other three petitions, and Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the respondent, raises the contention that as the orders in the other three petitions have become final, any order passed in this appeal at variance with the relief granted in the other three petitions would create inconsistent decrees in respect of the same matter and so we should dismiss the present appeal as incompetent. We, however, consider that this would not be the legal effect of any order passed by the court in this appeal and that there is no merit in this objection as a bar to the hearing of the appeal. In our opinion, the true position arising, if the present appeal by the State Government should succeed, would be that the finality of the orders passed in the other three writ petitions by the Punjab High Court would not be disturbed and that those thr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mplete defiance of the law laid down by this court. Such a course has been sought to be justified on the tenuous ground that they were not parties to the previous petition and therefore their cases would not be governed by the decision given in that petition. It may be observed immediately that such a position is wholly untenable and misconceived. The judgment which was delivered did not merely declare the promotions granted to the respondents in the writ petition filed at the previous stage as unconstitutional but also laid down in clear and unequivocal terms that the distribution of appointments, posts or promotions made in implementation of the communal policy was contrary to the constitutional guarantee of article 16. The law so declared by this court was binding on the respondent State and its officers and they were bound to follow it whether a majority of the present respondents were parties or not to the previous petition." In our opinion, both these decisions lay down identical principles and there is nothing to distinguish between the two. In the earlier case, this court, on its facts, overruled the preliminary objection that absence of appeals against the three petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture of a judgment of this court under art. 141 of the Constitution. Article 141 reads as follows: "The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India." A mere reading of this article brings into sharp focus its expanse and its all-pervasive nature. In cases like this, where numerous petitions are disposed of by a common judgment and only one appeal is filed, the parties to the common judgment could very well have and should have intervened and could have requested the court to hear them also. They cannot be heard to say that the decision was taken by this court behind their back or profess ignorance of the fact that an appeal had been filed by the State against the common judgment. We would like to observe that, in the fitness of things, it would be desirable that the State Government also took out publication in such cases to alert parties bound by the judgment, of the fact that an appeal had been preferred before this court by them. We do not find fault with the State for having filed only one appeal. It is, of course, an economising procedure. The judgment in the Hansa Corporation's case, rendered by one of us (Desai J.) conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the mandamus would survive in favour of those parties against whom appeals were not filed. The fallacy of the argument can be better illustrated by looking at the submissions made from a slightly different angle. Assume for argument's sake that the mandamus in favour of the appellants survived notwithstanding the judgment of this court. How do they enforce the mandamus? The normal procedure is to move the court in contempt when the parties against whom mandamus is issued disrespect it. Supposing contempt petitions are filed and notices are issued to the State. The State's answer to the court will be: " Can I be punished for disrespecting the mandamus, when the law of the land has been laid down by the Supreme Court against the mandamus issued, which law is equally binding on me and on you ?" Which court can punish a party for contempt under these circumstances ? The answer can be only in the negative because the mandamus issued by the High Court becomes ineffective and unenforceable when the basis on which it was issued falls, by the declaration by the Supreme Court, of the validity of the 1979 Act. In view of this conclusion of ours, we do not think it necessary to refer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
