Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J. (Majority View) :- I have the benefit of reading the judgment prepared by my esteemed brethren Sawant and K. Ramaswaray, JJ. Brother Sawant has taken the view that Section 20 of the Karnataka Act has not become void with the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while Brother K. Ramaswamy has come to the contrary conclusion. Agreeing with the conclusion of Sawant, J., I have not found it possible to concur with Ramaswamy, J. Since an interesting question has arisen and in looking to the two judgments. I have found additional reasons to support the conclusion of Sawant, J., I proceed to indicate the same in my separate judgment.

2. These applications under Article 32 of the Constitution by a group of disgruntled applicants for contract carriage permits call in question action of the concerned transport authorities in not entertaining their applications under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) made provision for grant of contract carriage permits. The Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act (Karnataka Act, 21 of 1976) received assent of the President on 11 th of March, 1976, but was declared to have come into force from 30th of January, 1976, when the corresponding Karnataka Ordinance 7 of 1976 had come into force. The long title of the Act indicated that it was an Act to provide for the acquisition of contract carriages and for matters incidental, ancillary or subservient thereto, and the preamble stated:

"Whereas contract carriages and certain other categories of public service vehicles are being operated in the State in a matter highly detrimental and prejudicial to public interest;

And whereas with a view to prevent such misuse and also to provide better facilities for the transport of passengers by road and to give effect to the policy of the State towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good and that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment;

And whereas for the aforesaid, purposes it is considered necessary to provide for the acquisition of contract carriages and certain other categories of public service vehicles in the State and for matters incidental, ancillary or subservient thereto ........"

Section 2 contains the declaration to the following effect:

"It is hereby declared. that this Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clauses (b) and (c) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India and the acquisition therefor of the contract carriages and other property referred to in Section 4."

4. Under Sec. 4 contract carriages owned or operated by contract carriage operators along with the respective permits and/ or certificates of registration, as the case may be, vested in the State absolutely free from encumbrances, and compensation for such acquisition was provided under the scheme of the Act. Section 14 prohibited application for any permit or fresh permit or renewal of existing permits for running of any contract carriage in the State by any private operator and all ending proceedings in relation to grant or renewal abated. Consequential provisions were made in Ss. 15 and 16 of the Act. Section 20 gave the Corporation the exclusive privilege of running contract carriages within the State to the exclusion of any provision under the 1939 Act.

5. The vires of the Act was the subject matter of the decision of this Court in a group of appeals in the case of the State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy (1979) 1 SCR 641. A Seven-Judge Bench upheld the validity of the statute holding that the impugned statute was an acquisition Act within the ambit of Entry 42 of the Concurrent List under Schedule VII of the Constitution. The Court took note of the fact that even though it may have had some incidental impact