State of Karnataka vs Ranganatha Reddy

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1977 Supreme(SC) 304

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.H. BEG, C.J.I., Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER, N.L. UNTWALIA, JASWANT SINGH AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
The State of Karnataka and another, etc., Appellants
Versus
Ranganatha Reddy and another, etc., etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1085 and 1522-1894 of 1976
Decided on 11-10-1977.

Headnote:
Karnataka Contract Carriages Act, 1976 - Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Section 3- Possible injuries – Quash of order – Claim of compensation - Earlier writ petitions were decided learned single Judge of High Court who held that Ordinance did not empower acquisition of vehicles not covered by valid contract permits and consequently quashed some of notifications - Ordinance with some charges was replaced by Act which received assent of President and was published in Karnataka Gazette operation of Act was however made retrospective from day when Ordinance had been promulgated and come into force - Ordinance was repealed by Section 31 of Act and saving clause in sub-sec. (2) says – Held, Discovery of Law India by interpreting liberally to embrace the higher values of collective good and to curb, where necessary, individual property rights, is all that we have endeavored to do – Court have been cautioned by appellants counsel that governments may usurp and destroy if judges do not cry halt. Where arbitrary, oppressive and mala fide misuse of power is a real peril, the court shall not fail. But to intervene and strike down, because a measure, within the constitutional bounds, may work hardship for some but is conceived for the good of the many in keeping with planned process of Development, has a Tory touch - Canonization of laissez faire cannons by the Court is to move counter-clockwise - Lord held view that in the field of constitutional Law, progressive and dynamic interpretation in the light of political developments must dominate British Coal Corporation Lord L.C. in Att -General for Alberta v. Att. Gen. for Canada affirmed the same approach - To such an organic statute the flexible interpretation must be given that changing circumstances require, and it would be alien to the spirit with which the preamble to the Statute of Westminster is instinct to concede anything less than the widest amplitude of power to the Dominion legislature under Sec. 101 of the British North America Act - object and end of all Government is to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community by which it is established wrote U.S. Chief Justice Taney ago in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge and we, in a republic with an irrevocable tryst to give social justice in midst of poverty, cannot diminish the power to accomplish those ends. To be stable is not to stand still; to move forward and reconcile is road to the goal - Juridical engineering geared to -rated policy objectives, being the key to most constitutional problems - Not subjective philosophy of judge philosophy of Constitution while it should be overpowered by it - Cardozo, with apt elegance, struck this note - Appeals allowed

JUDGMENT

UNTWALIA, J. (for himself and on behalf of Beg C. J. Chandrachud and Kailasam JJ.) :— This batch of 374 appeals by certificate is from the decision of the High Court of Karnataka given in 374 Writ Petitions filed by different persons having various kinds of interest in the Contract Carriages which were taken over by the State of Karnataka first by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance Number 7 of 1976) (for brevity, hereinafter, the Ordinance) followed by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The judgment of the High Court is reported in K. Jayaraj Ballal v. State of Karnataka, ILR (1976) Kant 1478. For the sake of convenience hereinafter in this judgment, reference to the High Court judgment wherever necessary will be made from the said report.

FACTS

2. The broad and the common facts of the various cases are in a narrow compass and not in dispute. At the outset, we shall state them mostly from the High Court judgment. We were not concerned to go into the special facts of some cases in these appeals. They may have to be looked into, if necessary, by the High Court in the light of this judgment. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation) was established by the State Government of Karnataka on August 1, 1961 under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (Central Act 64 of 1950). The Corporation was a party respondent to the writ petitions and is an appellant before us along with the State of Karnataka. We are stating the facts mostly from Civil Appeal No. 1035 of 1976 arising out of Writ Petition No. 817 of 1976. The Corporation published in the Karnataka Gazette dated May 16, 1974, a draft scheme for nationalisation of Contract Carriages in the State under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Central Act 4 of 1939). Objections were invited. Some of the writ-petitioners preferred their objections. It appears the State Government and the Corporation dropped the idea of proceeding with the scheme and without concluding the hearing and the disposal of the objections and the finalization of their scheme the Government came out with the Ordinance which was promulgated on January 30, 1976. As per Cl. 1 (3) of the Ordinance, it applied to "all contract carriage(s) operating in the State of Karnataka." By a number of notifications issued under the Ordinance almost all the contract carriages and the permits specified in the notifications vested in the State. They were transferred to the Corporation under Cl. 20 (1) of the Ordinance. The officers of the Corporation seized the vehicles and the relative permits pursuant to the notifications aforesaid except six vehicles which were operating under inter-State permits belonging to some of the writ petitioners. The seizure of the said six vehicles was stayed by the Order of the High Court made on 5th April, 1976 in some of the earlier writ petitions. The earlier writ petitions were decided on February 26, 1976 and March 3, 1976 by a learned single Judge of the High Court who held that the Ordinance did not empower the acquisition of the vehicles not covered by valid contract permits and consequently quashed some of the notifications. The Ordinance with some charges was replaced by the Act which received the assent of the President on 11-3-1976 and was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated the 12th March, 1976. The operation of the Act was, however, made retrospective from the 30th January, 1976 - the day when the Ordinance had been promulgated and come into force. The Ordinance was repealed by Section 31 of the Act and the saving clause in sub-sec. (2) says:

"Notwithstanding such repeal-

(i) anything done or any action taken under the said Ordinance, shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act."

Fresh notifications were also issued under t